Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Elham Valley Water and Herts and Essex Water) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hailsham Water) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Henley-on-Thames Water) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hertford) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Address for
Return showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1931, been registered at the Home Office; (2) Information as to any aliens who have, during the same period, obtained acts of naturalisation from the legislature; and (3) Particulars of cases in which certificates of naturalisation have been revoked during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 124, of Session 1930–31)."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EGG SUPPLIES.

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of foreign eggs purchased for consumption by His Majesty's Forces during the past six months?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): As regards the purchase of eggs by the Department, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 23rd June to my hon. Friend the Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer). As regards the purchase of eggs by the troops and their families through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, I am informed that the number of foreign eggs purchased at the institutes of all three Services at home stations amounted to 170,000 dozen during the last six months.

Mr. COOK: Is preferential treatment always given to British egg producers?

Mr. COOPER: The duty of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes is to provide purchasers with the eggs they wish to buy, and it is in carrying out this duty that they provide these eggs.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (RESEARCH).

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office to what extent contracts made by his Department are given to firms who contribute to the research associations established by State aid in their industries?

Mr. COOPER: Contracts are given to such firms on the same basis as to any others, i.e., strictly on the merits of their tenders.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the information asked for in the question as to the proportion of contracts that go to one set of firms; will he look into it and let me know?

Mr. COOPER: It is impossible to say. We should have to go through every contract that has been given in recent years to find out the percentage of orders that have gone to firms who contribute to these research associations.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman look into it to see if in general he can give the information?

Mr. COOPER: It would mean a very expensive and long investigation.

Mr. MANDER: 23.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state to what extent contracts made by his Department are given to firms who contribute to the research associations established by State aid in their industries?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): Contracts are given to such firms on the same basis as to any others, that is to say, strictly on the merits of their tenders.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider the desirability of supplying the information?

Mr. WHITE: My hon. Friend has already heard something of the difficulties in connection with another Department to which he put a question this afternoon, but I will consider it.

SCOTLAND (DUNRAGIT CREAMERIES).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the recent purchase and closing down of the Dunragit Creameries in Scotland- by the Unilever Combine; and whether, in view of the effect of the closing down of such factories upon employment in Scotland, he will take steps to obtain early information with regard to such proposals, with a view to making representations to those responsible for the closing down?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOT-LAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): I have been making some inquiry, but I find that the Dunragit Creamery is in fact a margarine factory, and I have no power to take any action in connection with the closing down of such factories.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these removals of local industries are causing much anxiety in Scotland, and at the same time grave national discontent; and will he take some action?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend about the desirability of encouraging rural industries, but this does not come within the jurisdiction of my Department. It is, in fact, a margarine factory.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLOSED FITS, LANCASHIRE AND DURHAM.

Mr. TINKER: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines the figures for the past 12 months of the number of mines closed down in Lancashire and the number of persons put out of work?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Fool;): Since 1st July, 1931, 22 pits in Lancashire, employing 3,685 wage earners, have been closed and not reopened. The net reduction in employment in Lancashire over the period in question was 2,822.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: 5.
(for Mr. McKEAG) asked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries have been closed down or partially closed down in Durham County since 1st January, 1932; and how many min3rs have been thrown out of employment in consequence?

Mr. FOOT: Since 1st January, 1932, 19 pits in Durham, employing 7,700 wage earners, have been closed and not reopened. Precise information is not available of pits partially closed, but the net decrease since 1st January in the total number of men employed at mines in Durham is 7,360.

FOREIGN COUNTRIES (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. COCKS: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines what countries are placing restrictions on the importation of British coal; what in each case is the nature of these restrictions and the dates of their imposition: what steps are being taken to alleviate the position; and what results have Been secured?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As the reply involves many references to figures and dates, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Restrictions on importation of British Coal.


Country.
Nature and dates of restrictions.
Steps taken by H. M. Government.
Present position.


France
…
A quota system for imports of coal, briquettes and certain classes of coke from all countries was introduced on 1st August, 1931. The quota for August was fixed at 100 per cent. Of the average imports for the three years 1929-8, 1929 and 1930, the quota was reduced to 80 per cent, on 1st December, 1931, to 72 per cent. On 1st February, 1932, to 70 per cent. (64 per cent. Plus a margin of 6 per cent.) and on 15th May, 1932, to 50 per cent. With an additional margin of 10 per cent. If there is a demand for the coal together with a monthly supplement of 100,000 tons for the coal importers at maritime ports.
Diplomatic representations were made on the grounds that the method of calculation of the quote and the administration of the licensing system giving effect to the quota were considered to be inequitable to this country.
The position was greatly improved by the withdrawal of the French 15 per cent. Surtax on coal on the 25th February, 1932, and was further improved by the changes of 15th May, 1932, in the quota arrangements which made the position of British coal imports in to France much less unfavourable, in comparison with coal imported from all other countries. The questions of improving the machinery for the issue of licences is at present under considerations by the trade interes's concered.


Belgium
…
A quota system for imports of coal and briquettes from all countries was introduced on 15th October, 1931, on the basis of 76 per cent. Of the imports during the year 1930. On 1st February, 1932, the quota was reduced to 70 per cent. Of the average imports during the first six month of 1931, and on 1st April, 1932, to 55.7 per cent.
Diplomatic representations were made on the grounds that the method of calculation of the quota revised on 1st February and the administration of the licensing system giving effect to the quota were considered to be inequitable to this country.
The difficulties experienced have not yet been wholly removed, but the position has recently been improved by the taking over as from the 1st June, 1932, of the licences for British coal by a Committee in Brussels, on which all the British interests concerned are represented.


Germany
…
A quota system for imports of coal, coke and briquettes from the United Kingdom has been in force since 1924. On 1st October, 1931, the quota was reduced from 420,000 tons to 300,000 tons a month, on 1st February, 1932, to 200,000 tons, on 1st March to 150,000 tons, and on 1st April to 100,000 tons.
Diplomatic representations have been made on the ground that the restriction is discriminatory against this country.
Negotiations are still in progress. H. M. Government will reply at a very early date to the proposal of the German Government that the matters in dispute should be referred to arbitration.


Italy
…
A landing tax of 2½ lire per metric ton was imposed on all coal imports by sea on 1st January, 1932.
Diplomatic representations have been made on the ground that the landing tax applies only to goods imported by sea, and accordingly affects coal from this country to a greater extent than coal from other countries.
Negotiations are still in progress.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to dispel the delusion that these restrictions are due to the operation of the British tariff?

Mr. FOOT: The information will be set out dealing with the four countries concerned, and it will give the present position in each case.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a delusion to imagine that the restrictions are not due to the British tariff?

Mr. FOOT: I am not here to deal with delusions.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the additional steps taken by the Government of Germany to exclude British coal imports into that country, and as Dutch coal has been allowed to enter Germany in excess pf the quota without leave, he will now consider the advisability of taking retaliatory action against Germany under the Import Duties Act on the grounds that the British coal export trade is being discriminated against?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The German Government do not admit that their action involves discrimination against the United Kingdom, and they have proposed that the matter should be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924 at the same time as certain other Treaty questions outstanding between the two Governments. This proposal is now receiving consideration.

Captain MACDONALD: Has any representative been appointed by His Majesty's Government to appear on behalf of the Government?

Mr. COLVILLE: No. As I have indicated, the matter is receiving consideration.

Mr. BATEY: We got the same answer last week; when are we going to get a definite reply?

Mr. COLVILLE: As was indicated on that occasion, the German proposal also contains proposals as to other treaty questions outstanding, and that is what has caused the delay, but there will be no avoidable delay.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE (MINERS' DEMONSTRATION).

Mr. PIKE: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of pits closed in South Yorkshire on the 20th June owing to the miners' day revival; whether the closing down was compulsory owing to abstention by the miners; and if he will ascertain the number of miners who were compelled, against their wishes, to cease work?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The returns for the week in question are not yet available, and I am doubtful whether, when they are received, they will contain all the information which my hon. Friend desires. I will send him such particulars as are available in the next few days.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this demonstration represents one of the 10 days' holidays agreed upon between the mine workers and the owners; and is he further aware that the whole of the South Yorkshire miners are: working three or four days a week so that one day makes no difference?

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Gentleman will understand that in my answer I gave no expression of opinion about the merits of the arrangement.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been publicly expressed by the Secretary of the Yorkshire Miners' Association that had it not been for certain pits not participating, so far as closing down was concerned, there would have been a much larger number of miners at the demonstration?

Mr. LUNN: May I also ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that this was the finest attended demonstration that has ever been held in Yorkshire by any party, industrial or political?

Mr. PIKE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether claims to unemployment benefit will be paid to the miners who participated in the South Yorkshire miners' revival march; whether the closing of the pits was made compulsory owing to abstention; and if he will state the estimated cost to the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The claims for benefit are being considered by the statutory authorities.
Pending their decision on the claims it would be undesirable for me to express any opinion on the second part of the question and it is not possible to deal with the last part of the question.

Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of miners from the Attercliffe Division attended this demonstration and helped to make it a brilliant success; and is he further aware that the men who were absent from work on the Monday for this demonstration might have been compelled to be absent on the Wednesday or Thursday because there was no work?

Mr. HUDSON: That is a matter for the umpire to decide if they seek benefit.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Member aware that the reason given why so few miners attended the pits that did not close is that had they attended the pits their benefit would have been stopped?

WAGE DISPUTES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many mine workers were involved in wage disputes on Monday, 20th June; how many collieries were stopped through this cause; and where such collieries are situated?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The returns for the week in question are not yet available, and until they are received I am not able to give the information asked for; but at present my Department has no knowledge of any pit which was stopped on the date referred to on account of a wages dispute.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the North Gawber Colliery has been closed down for 10 weeks?

Mr. FOOT: I think that the hon. Member will find my answer is strictly correct having regard to the date he mentions. I am aware of the stoppage of work at the North Gawber Colliery, and the position is the same as when I last answered a question. When our intervention is sought, we shall be happy to give it.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to state how many colliery companies have failed to meet their liabilities under the Workmen's Compen-
sation Act since 1926; will he give the total number of men affected; and also similar figures for Lancashire?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Stanley): Inquiries made into colliery liquidations since 1st January, 1927, have disclosed 12 cases in which there has been or is certain to be a permanent loss of compensation affecting about 390 workmen altogether. These include two Lancashire cases affecting 63 men. In addition, there are 11 cases, affecting possibly 500 to 600 men, where the position is still uncertain. These include two Lancashire collieries, and affect about 160 men. I have no information as to cases before 1927.

Mr. TINKER: Has the Home Secretary been in communication with the colliery owners, pointing out what has happened and asking them to do something?

Mr. STANLEY: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member see to it that when, the next King's Speech is prepared the necessary legislation to deal with this matter is included in it; that is, if the National Government hold together until then?

Mr. DICKIE: Have the Government considered the advisability of using a portion of the Miners' Welfare Fund for dealing with these very deserving cases?

Mr. STANLEY: In reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), this matter was raised during the Debate on the Home Office Estimates, and it was stated then that my right hon. Friend was giving his close attention to it. As the hon. Member knows, this is a very much more complicated subject than appears at the first view.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now make any further statement with regard to the participation of the Irish Free State at the Ottawa Conference; and whether the British Government are prepared to negotiate with it on the basis of Empire equality?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have nothing to add at present to the statement which I made to the House on this subject in the Debate on 17th June.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information as to the intention of the Irish Free State to send any representatives to the Conference at Ottawa?

Mr. THOMAS: I have no recent information beyond the reports which have appeared in the Press.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is there any change in the attitude of the British Government since the situation was discussed hero a week last Friday?

Mr. THOMAS: None whatever.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has appointed any delegates to represent the British film industry at the Empire Economic Conference; and, if so, will he state the names of the persons selected?

Mr. THOMAS: As I have intimated on previous occasions, the United Kingdom delegation will be assisted by the industrial advisers whose names have been announced, and it is open to any trade to lay its views before these advisers and to decide in consultation with them whether it needs to be specially represented at Ottawa. The hon. Member will no doubt have seen the reports in the Press which indicate that representatives of the film industry will in fact be present in Ottawa during the Conference.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of those representatives, Mr. Oscar, is not a British naturalised subject?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know anything about the nationality of any of them, but I assume that those engaged in the British industry will be as interested in protecting their industry as the hon. Member?

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Gaumont Pictures is entirely controlled by American capital?

ALIENS (BRITISH WIVES).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES): 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if the problems connected with the nationality of British women who marry aliens will come up for discussion at the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), of which I am sending him a copy.

FORESHORE EIGHTS, LANCASHIRE.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what local authorities in Lancashire now lease their foreshore rights from the Board of Trade, and on what terms?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): There are no such leases, as the foreshore in Lancashire is not under the management of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES (NATIONAL PLANNING).

Mr. COCKS: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken in the direction of the scientific planning and reconstruction on a national scale of the main British industries?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The limits of a Parliamentary answer only permit me to refer my hon. Friend to statements on the subject of industrial organisation which have been made from time to time on behalf of the Government and the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. COCKS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that; unless we undertake this national planning, nothing but disaster awaits us?

EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is now proposed to establish some form of clearing house between this country and those countries where restrictions on foreign payments are now in existence?

Captain WATT: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the dangers to our export trade by the in-
Government are taking to obviate the creasing number of exchange restrictions in foreign countries?

Mr. COLVILLE: If a question on this subject is put down next week, I hope to be able to make a statement.

OVERSEAS PROPAGANDA (SCOTLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 20.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that during the third week in June temperatures in Scotland on many occasions reached a higher level than in England; and whether, with a view to drawing the attention of the British public and foreign visitors to the attractions of Scotland as a holiday resort, he will consider making a small additional annual grant to the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, in respect of Scotland in particular, on condition that the association shall devote a larger part of its activities to giving publicity to the amenities of Scotland than at present?

Mr. COLVILLE: I believe that the weather in Scotland during the period referred to compared favourably with that in other parts of the British Isles. The grant to the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland cannot be used for attracting visitors from one part of the British Isles to another, but is allotted for the purpose of attracting overseas visitors to the British Isles. The Association advertises the attractions of Scotland in. its overseas propaganda. On grounds of economy I regret that a larger grant cannot at present be considered.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a totally erroneous and unfounded impression abroad, as well as in England, that the weather in Scotland is uniformally inferior to that in England, and will he take every step to scotch that impression—to kill that impression—and by giving this extra grant for which I am asking will he ensure that Scotland is given a fair share of attention in the description of the general amenities of the British Isles?

Mr. COLVILLE: I hope I can rely on the help of all Scottish Members in removing the impression to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware of the bracing qualities of the North-East Coast, and especially Newcastle?

DENMARK AND SCANDINAVIA.

Mr. COCKS: 21.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information to the effect that there is a growing market in Denmark and Scandinavia for British goods but that opportunities are being lost owing to the fact that British manufacturers as a whole are not sufficiently adapting themselves to the requirements of these markets; and whether he can bring this matter to the attention of the British chambers of commerce and other business authorities?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: On a point of Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, will he ask the hon. Member to substantiate the statement he has made in his question that British manufacturers are not sufficiently adapting themselves to the needs of this market?

Mr. COLVILLE: Perhaps my answer will make the position plain.
I have no evidence to support the suggestion that manufacturers as a whole are failing to adapt themselves to the requirements of Scandinavian markets, but the Department of Overseas Trade is constantly bringing to the notice of suitable interests the opportunities of these markets and several special investigations have been carried out with satisfactory results.

Mr. COCKS: Has not the hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to the statement made by Sir Francis Good enough and others to the effect set forth in my question?

Mr. COLVILLE: I am well aware of the statement made by Sir Francis Good-enough on the general question, but, as I have pointed out, we have no evidence of a general neglect of this market. We are always pointing out the value of this market.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that not infrequently when Denmark attempts to obtain goods from this country she is referred either to Germany or Czechoslovakia?

Mr. COLVILLE: I have heard such complaints, but I also know that many good orders from Denmark have been obtained recently by this country, and I believe they are being executed satisfactorily.

TRADE MISSION SHIPS.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the success of the enterprise of Scottish trading interests in sending the steamship "Letitia" on a trade mission to Canada, any steps have been taken by his Department to ascertain whether this success will justify similar trade mission ships being sent on behalf of English manufacturers to Canada and the other Dominions, in view of the special opportunities offered by the forthcoming Ottawa Conference?

Mr. COLVILLE: The Department of Overseas Trade is closely examining the results achieved by the Scottish trade mission to Canada, and is prepared to consider co-operation with any similar undertaking by trading interests which may be brought before it. I am, however, not aware of any such scheme being in contemplation at the present time.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the desirability of encouraging such missions in the near future, owing to the depression in trade, will the hon. Gentleman communicate with one or other of the trade associations, such as the Federation of British Industries, and suggest that such matters should receive their consideration?

Mr. COLVILLE: I am very frequently in touch with the associations referred to, and I am willing to take the hon. Member's proposal into consideration.

IMPORTED HOSIERY MACHINERY.

Mr. COCKS (for Mr. CHARLES BROWN): 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of hosiery machinery imported into Great Britain from Germany in the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and for the first quarter of 1932?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The quantity of hosiery machinery, as such, imported into the United Kingdom is not separately recorded. The total weight of hosiery and knitting machines and parts thereof imported into the United Kingdom, and
registered as consigned from Germany, was 1,536 tons in 1929; 854 tons in 1930; 826 tons in 1931; and 615 tons in the first quarter of 1932.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it not a fact that the machinery referred to in the question is German machinery which prior to the introduction of the tariff by the Government was in use for making German hosiery, which was imported into this country by German manufacturers employing German workmen; and is not that machinery now being used to employ British workmen?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should think so partly.

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what the present value of tithe rentcharge would be on the basis of the septennial average; and whether in view of the difficulty farmers experiences, owing to the depressed condition of agriculture, in paying tithe rentcharge at its present value, he will take steps to deal with the situation?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The value of £100 tithe rentcharge, par or commuted value, if calculated on the septennial average of the prices of wheat, barley and oats, as laid down in the earlier Tithe Acts, would have been £99 for the year 1932. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President to the hon. and gallant Member for the Maldon Division (Colonel Ruggles-Brise), on 22nd June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PIG INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to publish the final Report of the Pig Industry Council?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply I gave on 14th April to a question on the subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Colonel Bald-win-Webb), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many conflicting reports, both in this House and elsewhere, as to what is contained in this report, and does he not consider it advisable, in order to dispel these rumours, to have the report published, so that we may know what is in it?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No Sir, I am clearly of opinion that it would be a waste of money to publish a report which is now being considered by a Commission set up by this House.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pig industry is in a grave position, and that sows are being freely slaughtered, and is no action going to be taken?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am very well aware of the anxiety.

NATIONAL MARK BEEF SCHEME.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of officials employed in the Birkenhead and Manchester abattoirs, respectively, for the purpose of grading meat; the salaries paid to each official; and the number of carcases graded by them in each abattoir for the 12 months ended the 31st May, 1932?

Sir J. GILMOUR: One grader and one marker are employed at the Woodside Lairage, Birkenhead, for the purpose of grading and marking beef for consignment to consuming centres in which the National Mark Beef Scheme is in operation. The grader receives an inclusive salary of £46 11s. a month and the marker a wage of £3 7s. 11d. a week. The number of carcases graded at Birkenhead in the period referred to was 8,500. The National Mark Scheme does not operate in Manchester and no graders or markers are employed there.

EDUCATION (TEACHERS' SALARIES).

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state the number of female teachers, certificated and uncertificated, employed in his Department in the last week of May, 1914 and 1932, respectively; the number drawing salaries
of £104 per year or under; the number drawing salaries of over £104 but less than £156 per year; the number drawing salaries of £156 per year but less than £208 per year; and the number drawing salaries of £208 per year and in excess of that sum for the same periods?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): At the end of the year 1913–14 there were employed in public elementary schools 71,774 certificated women teachers and 36,679 uncertificated. The corresponding figures for 31st March, 1932, are approximately 87,200 and 27,900. I regret that the information furnished by local education authorities as to salaries paid to individual teachers is not recorded in such a way as to enable me to answer the other parts of the hon. Member's question, except by a special scrutiny of the returns, which would involve a great deal of time and labour.

INDIA (POLICE, UNITED PROVINCES).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there has been recently a large reduction in the number of deputy superintendents of police in the United Provinces, and also a further reduction of the number of chaukidars; and whether, in view of the rise in the list of ordinary dacoities, from 727 in 1930 to 1,124 in 1931 and to 341 in the first three months of 1932, he will have the number of police raised?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has no information beyond that given to my hon. Friend on the 11th May. He is making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend when a reply is received.

HOUSING (RENTS).

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 32.
asked the Minister of Health the average economic rental required to cover the cost in the home counties of subsidy houses built by public authorities prior to January, 1932, costing £400; and will he state the average rentals now charged by those authorities for such houses?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The approximate average economic rental of houses built by local authorities costing £400 assuming a rate of interest at 5 per cent, and return of capital over 60 years would be about 10s. 6d. a week. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the average rental now charged by local authorities for such houses erected under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, but they should be able to let such houses at approxmately 6s. 6d. a week.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is that figure exclusive of rates?

Mr. E. BROWN: That is the rental.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. DICKIE: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department in all cases remits the fine payable by any member of a local authority who resigns on accepting a salaried appointment under such council; and, if not, on what principle the decision of his Department is based?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend cannot find that a case of this kind has come before the Department during the last five years. He would mention that, as the law now stands, it is not essential for a councillor who proposes to become a candidate for office to resign: and it is not within my right hon. Friend's power to require him to do so.

Mr. DICKIE: Can the hon. Member give any information with regard to an appointment recently made by the Stanley Urban District Council in the county of Durham?

Mr. BROWN: If my hon. Friend will communicate with me, I shall be glad to go into the matter with him.

FLOODS, DERBY.

Mr. ALLAN REID: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the investigations made by an inspector from the Ministry in relation to the flood which occurred at Derby on 22nd May last, the causes thereof, the danger of a
recurrence, and the inspector's report thereon, he will accede to the request of a number of the citizens of Derby, sufferers from the consequences of the flood, that a public inquiry shall be held at which the citizens may be represented and tender evidence?

Mr. E. BROWN: One of the inspectors of my Department has visited the locality and interviewed representatives of the council and also of those who suffered by the floods. My right hon. Friend does not think a public inquiry would serve any useful purpose, but he is considering what other helpful measure he can take.

MALTA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the educational reforms which he has outlined for Malta will be affected or modified by the victory of the Nationalist party in that Colony?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The policy of His Majesty's Government on this matter which I announced to the House has already been carried into legal effect by the Letters Patent issued on the 25th April last.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Minister for Education in the Maltese Government will carry out the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The provisions of the law sufficiently ensure that the decisions approved of in all quarters of the House, as laid down in Letters Patent, will be adhered to.

ROYAL PARKS (GIFTS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what gifts have been made by private donors to the Royal parks during the last two years?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of gifts to the Royal parks since March, 1930. It always gives me great pleasure to receive such gifts, and I am very grateful of this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the donors. I should like to take this special opportunity of thanking
Members of Parliament who have subscribed to the pictures of the ducks which will shortly be reinstated.

Following is the list:

Birds:

The Duke of Bedford—4 Magellanic Geese, 200 eggs of Amherst pheasant.
The Viscountess Byng of Vimy—12 wigeon.
The Earl of Clarendon (Governor-General of the Union of South Africa) through the courtesy of the National Zoological Gardens of South Africa—4 Stanley cranes, 2 spur-winged geese, 4 yellow-billed ducks.
Colonel Maxwell Earle—1 Chinese goose.
Mr. C. B. Elliott—1 white swan.
Mr. A. Ezra,—22 Indian doves, 12 Garganey Teal, 2 red-billed tree ducks, 2black-billed tree ducks, 2 white-faced tree ducks, 10 Baikal teal, 1 flamingo.
Monsieur J. Delacour—4 Japanese spot bill.
Mr. J. C. Laidlay—8 Gadwall ducks, 2 Eider ducks, 2 hybrid teal.
Mr. J. Spedan Lewis—30 Mandarin ducks.
Mr. W. H. St. Quentin—12 Mandarin ducks, 4 falcated teal, 4 Bahama pintail ducks, 2 cinnamon teal, 2 Brazilian teal, 2 blue-winged teal, 3white-eyed pochard, 1 American redheaded pochard, 1 goldeneyed duck, 1 American wigeon, 1 hybrid American wigeon by falcated teal.

Plants, Bulbs, etc.:
Bermuda Department of Agriculture—400 Lilium Harrisii.
British Rose-growers' Association (through the Empire Marketing Board)—10,000 rose trees.
Messrs. W. Fairbairn & Sons—48 dahlia "Mrs. Musgrave Hoyle."
Mr. S. Goetze—180 ornamental cherry trees.
Mr. M. Hollis—200 lilium Harrisii.
Mr. G. Monro—2,500 daffodil, King Alfred.
The Rolvenden Nurseries—200 statice profusa superba.
Mr. F. Stewart Sandeman—1 case of hardy ferns.
Mrs. H. G. Spicer—2,000 crocus.

Miscellaneous:

Mr. S. Goetze—8 teak seats.
Mrs. Maude Search—Sundial.
1636
Mr. H. E. Seligman— 1 plank swing.
Mr. M. W. Shanly—25 garden seats.
Various Members of both Houses of Parliament—Tiles illustrating waterfowl in St. James's Park.

Bequest:

The late Mr. G. Bridcut—Clock on children's shelter at Primrose Hill.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. LAMBERT: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any moneys of the Exchange Equalisation Account have been used to increase the stock of gold held by the Bank of England?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Exchange Equalisation Account is or will be used for the purchase of silver; and to what extent, if at all, it has been used for the purchase of gold?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): ; The Exchange Equalisation Account has been established since last Friday and the Treasury have placed to the credit of the Account the sum of £150 millions authorised by section 24 of the Finance Act, 1932. My hon. Friend will understand that this is an accounting transaction, the sum being held in sterling and re-lent to the Exchequer unless and until required for any other purpose of the Account. My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to give detailed information as to the operations of the Account, but in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) I would point out that the purchase of silver would be contrary to Section 24 (3) of the Finance Act.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Exchange Equalisation Account under the control of the Treasury or the Bank of England?

Major ELLIOT: It is under the control of the Treasury, as laid down in the Finance Act.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that we cannot be told whether there has been any gold bought as yet, or not?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that is so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then how are we to assist His Majesty's Ministers in watching and controlling this particular fund?

INCOME TAX.

Captain HUNTER (for Sir WILLIAM DAVISON): 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to institute legal proceedings for the recovery of Surtax in arrear notwithstanding the fact that part of the income upon which the assessment is made has not actually been received?

Major ELLIOT: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are bound in pursuance of their statutory duties to take all steps, including legal proceedings if necessary, to recover sums due to the State under any assessments made in accordance with the law. If my hon. Friend has in mind any case in which he considers that proceedings for recovery of Surtax are being improperly instituted and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will have the matter investigated and communicate the result to him.

Captain HUNTER: 38.
(for Sir W.DAVISON) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the arrears of Schedule A tax arising out of agricultural rents for the year 1931–32; and, where a formal demand for the tax has been made upon the tenant, what instructions have been given to inspectors of taxes to press for immediate payment, notwithstanding the existing agricultural depression?

Major ELLIOT: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. The collection of tax in the particular class of case referred to proceeds, as in the case of other taxpayers, in accordance with the ordinary practice, and no special instructions have been issued nor, I think, are necessary.

AUSTRIA (LOAN).

Mr. MANDER: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether an agreement has now been arrived at to grant a joint loan to Austria as a result of the recommendations made by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations; and, if so, to what extent it is proposed that Great Britain should contribute?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Farnham Division of Surrey (Sir A. M. Samuel) on the 23rd instant, to which I have so far nothing to add.

Mr. MANDER: Are negotiations still proceeding?

Major ELLIOT: The matter is still under consideration.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONED POLICE OFFICIALS).

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 42.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of pensioned police officials employed in the Civil Service?

Major ELLIOT: I regret that this information is not readily available and could not be obtained without an expenditure of time and labour which I do not feel justified in authorising.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Private John. Wilson, who died in Hope Hospital, Salford, on Sunday, the 26th. instant, from the effects of war wounds, that although riddled with shrapnel in more than 100 places he would not apply for a disability pension as long as he was able to follow he employment as a lorry driver, that when unemployment forced him to apply for a pension he subsequently became too ill to complete his claim, and seeing that Private Wilson has left a. widow and two children, aged seven and two years, respectively, and that his widow is not legally entitled to a war widow's pension because Private Wilson was not in receipt of payment of a disability pension at the time of his death, and that he was not married until after the War, he will consider this case in a special light and make a grant immediately of a war widow's pension?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I will make immediate inquiries into the facts of this case, but if, as appears from my hon. Friend's question, Private Wilson's marriage took place after he sustained his injuries, the widow
would not in any case be entitled to a pension, and I have no power to grant one.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not possible for the Minister to grant a pension on compassionate grounds?

Major TRYON: No, Sir; that is not in my power. The principle involved has been sustained by successive Governments and by Ministers of all parties.

DISARMAMENT (PRESIDENT HOOVER'S PROPOSALS).

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he can make any statement as to the Government s attitude towards President Hoover's proposals?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I cannot at present add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday, in reply to a question on this subject.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to give notice that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night, put some questions to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it will be more convenient to do so then than at Question Time.

IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS (MARKING).

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the marking of all imported foodstuffs with an indication as to whether of Empire or foreign production and of the country of origin; and to provide for matters incidental thereto.
The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce proposes that the marking of these foodstuffs shall be on importation and on sale or exposure for sale, whether wholesale or retail. The marking will be placed on the article itself or on its container, or will be carried out in some other way effective for the purpose. The marking, also, will consist of two different designations—first, as to whether the article is of Empire or foreign production; and, secondly, as to its country of origin. The nature and manner of the marking will be laid down by Order in
Council on the recommendation of the appropriate Department, and the laying of such Orders before Parliament will follow the procedure of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926.
I do not think I need make any apology to the House for bringing the principle of this Bill before it. In my view it is long overdue. England's unsheltered food markets has been for too long the Mecca of the exporting countries of the world. It is the most valuable food market in the world. In this country we ourselves have been taught to take our food on trust, very often regardless of its origin, sometimes regardless of its worth and quality. I think it is high time that we knew more about what we are buying and whence it comes. We have in this country a "Buy British" campaign, but how is the householder or the housewife to know, when, either in the butcher's shop or in the grocer's shop, they see beef on the slab or bacon on the counter, whether that article is of home or Empire or foreign production? This Bill will make a reality of the "Buy British" campaign by enabling the buyer to know what he or she is buying.
It is true that under the Merchandise Marks Act a few Orders relating to foodstuffs have been made, but they are few indeed. Why are they so few? For the reason that, before the British buyer may be allowed to know where the foodstuff in question comes from, some harassed home industry has had to pass through the inquisition of an inquiry in making its application for an Order, and that has been an expensive business. The application has been resisted by organisations of distributors and other powerful interests. I am credibly informed that the promoters of the application for the recent Butter Marking Order, which was subsequently granted, were involved in a cost of over £2,000. I think that that is monstrous. Indeed, every obstacle seems to have been placed in the way of granting an Order under that Act. This Bill will sweep all that away. I submit to the House that it is time that we put the boot on the other leg. Let the importer tell us where the imported article comes from; let us proceed on the principle that everything imported in the way of foodstuffs should in future be marked.
Under the Bill it will be open to the home producer to mark his pro-
duce or not, as ho thinks best. He can, if he wishes, take advantage of the National Mark, or any other mark. But, after all, this market is his home market, and it ought to be his own market as well. Surely no one would deny him the right to this option in his own market. But the National Mark costs British money. Why should not other countries take the trouble to mark their goods, if they desire to enjoy the benefits and privileges of our home market? We have an Empire Marketing Board, which costs British money too. I submit that the "Buy British" campaign has lost much of its value, and that the National Mark scheme and the activities of the Empire. Marketing Board have not given us full value for the money that they have cost, for one reason, and one reason only. That is that we have neglected to have a general Food Marking Order. We have omitted the pre-requisite to the success of this movement; in fact, we have started at the wrong end.
I think that at this moment it is singularly appropriate that the British House of Commons should affirm this principle. Ottawa is near upon us; our representatives will shortly be leaving these shores; and I would like to see our representatives take with them to Ottawa this happy gesture. I would like them to remind the Dominions that the competition which they have to meet in our home food market is not merely that of the home producer, but still more that of the foreign producer. I would like our representatives, before they commence discussion with a view to mutual advantage—and I hope that these two words will be the text of all the discussions at Ottawa—to tell the Dominions quite clearly that, although we expect and look forward to a greatly increased expansion of our home production of foodstuffs, yet there will still be a wide field open to them in which they will be able to enjoy preferences. In the second place, I would like our representatives to tell them that, in order to make these preferences fully effective, we intend in future that Empire foodstuffs shall be completely distinguishable from foreign foodstuffs. This in itself will constitute a valuable preference to Empire producers.
I believe that Empire countries will welcome this gesture, and, indeed, who can rightly object? Foreign countries certainly can have no cause for com-
plaint; Empire countries can have nothing to lose, but everything to gain; the homo farmer will have nothing to fear; the home buyer will have nothing to fear; the honest trader will have nothing to fear; while the dishonest trader, if such there be, will be found out. Let us know in future what it is that we are buying. If we can afford, which few of us can, to buy the best cut of so-called home-fed British beef, let us make quite sure that that joint comes from an animal which is British born and fed, which has lived and died a British animal, and is not one that has spent its life browsing on the breezy plains oil the Argentine. Or, again, to go to the other extreme, if we want to buy a tin of condensed skimmed milk labelled "Unfit for Babies," let it still be open to the British producer to produce a tin of British-made skimmed milk that is fit for British babies.
I have heard the argument advanced that such marking might prove to be a disadvantage to the home producer. I scorn that argument. I believe it to be true that British producers are capable of placing their products alongside the products of any other country in the world, and of competing fairly with them. If that be not the case in respect of any particular article, then I would say that the sooner that state of affairs is remedied the better, and this Bill will stimulate the process. I submit that our farmer in many respects has not had a fair chance. His home market has been largely denied to him because the prices ruling in that home market have had no relation whatever to his own home costs of production. No other country having a food market of any value has permitted that market to be exploited in the way that we have in this country. Agriculture is the industry of all our industries at this moment which can make the biggest contribution to the rectification of our adverse trade balance. We must remember that, when we get that increased expansion, we shall not be doing it for export, but that it will be for the home market—that the home buyer must buy more British foodstuffs, and that we must tell him which is which. We know that we are cumbered with many international commitments and commercial treaties. These are often urged as an excuse for inaction in regard to doing anything to help agricul-
ture. Here is an opportunity to do something which conies into no conflict with any of these treaties. We can help the Empire and ourselves in one. We have a National Government supported by a National House of Commons elected by the national will. Let us do something that is both national and Imperial at one and the same time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Sir Douglas Newton, Sir Percy Hurd, Mr. Turton, Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Christie, Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive, Mr. Fergus Graham, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Rosbotham, and Mr. Everard.

IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS (MARKING) BILL,

"to provide for the marking of all imported foodstuffs with an indication as to whether of Empire or foreign production and of the country of origin; and to provide for matters incidental thereto, "presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Rating and Valuation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]): Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Caporn, Major Colfox, Sir Gifford Fox, Colonel Gretton, Marquess of Hartington, Mr. McKeag, Major Milner, and Mr. Rhys.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Children and Young Persons Bill,
South Suburban Gas Bill, 
Chester Corporation Bill, 
Gateshead Extension Bill, with Amendments.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee..

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1932.

CLASS VI.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceding £336,647, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, loans to Co-operative Societies, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, a grant in respect of the Hebridean Drifter Service, and certain grants in aid.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Unfortunately the Debate on this Vote last week was a comparatively short one and a great many Members had not the advantage of listening to the speech of the Secretary of State. It was rather in the nature of an apology, because he had to confess that the Vote this year was subjected to a rigorous economic cut. That was very unfortunate, because, if Scotland depends on one thing apart from mining, it is agriculture, which is its great industry. My right hon. and gallant Friend, in my judgment, did not satisfy Members in his justification of the economic cuts. Let me take, for example, the case of land settlement. Since I entered the House 2 years ago every Scottish Member has been exceedingly keen on this question, and no one was move keen than my right hon. and gallant Friend when he had less responsibility and more freedom. Many of us remember the ardent speeches that he delivered from that side of the House. I can quite understand his position, because he is a Member of a Government that is pledged to economy. But there are such things as false economy, and in my judgment no economy could be more false than that which seeks to cut down expenditure upon maintaining a strong and virile population upon the land.
This Report ends on 31st December, 1931. The references to land settlement
are, in the judgment of most of us, extremely unsatisfactory. The number of officials employed in the Department of Agriculture has increased during the last year. There may be reasons for that. It may be that it has increased because of the number of new Acts applicable to agriculture which have been introduced. But the fact remains that, while there is an increase in salaries and expenses, there is an enormous decrease in the amount of money voted by the House for the purpose for which the Department was instituted. No fewer than 25,000 applications have been made by young and stalwart men, most of them with a native knowledge of the land of their country, for settlement upon the soil of their country. Of those 25,000, only 5,900 were settled upon the land in nearly a quarter of a century, and 11,000 of the applications have been withdrawn. The Report does not explain why they were withdrawn, but it seems to me that their hearts became faint and weary with waiting, and it is a very sad commentary upon the administration of the Act that half of the applications have been withdrawn for one reason or another. An equally significant fact is that no fewer that 7,677 applications have still to be dealt with, and this is the opportunity that is taken for a rigorous cutting down of the expenditure, willingly voted by the House, for the purpose of keeping this population on the land.
We hear every day, almost certainly every week, of the deplorable condition so far as employment is concerned. The figures of unemployment arc daily growing, and we hear from all parts of the country of the trouble that exists, particularly in rural districts, largely because the old occupations of those districts have ceased to be as profitable as they were and also because of the slackness of the land and the lack of any promise of future progress on the land. All these have gone to drive the rural population on to the market in the cities, thus increasing more and more the difficulties and the dangers of urban unemployment. There is that significant fact, and yet in this Report, as far as I can see, there is scarcely more than 12 lines devoted to it and 7,677 applications have still to be dealt with. As far as I can make out, this year no money is being allocated for the settlement of new holders upon the land. There is a suggestion that holdings
may be adapted for settlement. There is no suggestion that any of the money provided by Parliament should be utilised for the purposes for which the Department of Agriculture was initially brought into existence. It is a very sad state of affairs. I hope that my right hon. Friend may be able, when he conies to reply, to hold out some hope that vigorous action will be taken for the settlement of more people upon the land, as has been suggested all these years.
My right hon. Friend knows that in the report little mention is made of the Agricultural Credits Act which was passed in 1929. At the same time there was an Act of the same nature passed for England, and by some wise piece of strategy the English farmer and the English holder had the enormous benefits of that Act conferred upon them almost immediately. For two years or more the Scottish farmer and the Scottish smallholder have been without the advantages of the Scottish Agricultural Credits Act. Many a time, as the Committee, I hope, will remember, I have pub questions to my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I put questions to his predecessor. I have felt sorely tempted during recent months when my right hon. and gallant Friend became Secretary of State for Scotland to hurl at him some of the supplementary questions which he hurled at his predecessor on this particular point. I am glad to say—and I know that it is largely due to the desire of my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Act should be put into force—that recently steps have been taken in the matter, but so far none of the advantages of this beneficent Act has been accorded to the Scottish farmer or the Scottish smallholder. At the present time in Scotland there is a strong national feeling coming into existence, and it is just this sort of thing which drives young, ardent men who love their country into the ranks of revolution. About six weeks ago my right hon. Friend stated to me that he had been in consultation with the four Scottish banks and also with the Treasury, and that some arrangement had been made. Will he be in a position when he replies to the Debate this afternoon to tell the farmers and the holders in Scotland exactly the situation, because he may take it from me that there is a very strong feeling arising among agriculturists in Scot-
land owing to the fact that year after year, and month after month, they are deprived of the advantages which they see being enjoyed by their competitors across the border.
I see in the report that mention is also made of the new legislation, and I regret to see that the £10,000 which was to be given to Scotland under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act is to be taken away. Is it going to come back into the coffers of the Treasury or what is to be done with it? I all the more regret that the £10,000 is being withheld because it is a comparatively small sum when one considers the nature of the industry and its difficulties at the present time. I noticed during the passage of the Bill which ultimately became an Act that there were no fewer than 800 applications for assistance under the Act, and to any man with a knowledge of statecraft or of the industry that fact would be significant. It would certainly show to him that the Act was likely to be a useful Act and that the people who were concerned were alive to its value. And yet we have two or three sentences in the Report making this observation, and this observation only, that £10,000 which was allocated for the purposes of the Act was no longer to be utilised for those purposes. Will my right hon. and gallant Friend be in a position to tell us what has happened under the other Act—the Agricultural Holdings Act—which was passed last; year. It was obviously too early to have anything definite with regard to the working of the Act put into this particular Report, but six or seven months have elapsed since then. One would like to be in a position to know the results of that new piece of legislation.
In the Scottish Department of Agriculture there are a great many Departments and subsidiary Votes. It might be news to you, Captain Bourne, that in this particular Department there is a Vote granted every year dealing with piers. Piers in normal circumstances would come under the Fishery Vote, but there is a public fund in this Vote which is devoted at times to the maintenance and preservation of piers in Scotland. I have no doubt that a great many of my colleagues know of many piers which need assistance at the present time. I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend, for example, to recall the correspondence which
I have had with him in regard to the pier at Gairloch on the West Coast of Scotland. There you have a pier which serves a very wide and a very beautiful part of the West Coast of Scotland, and the people there are almost entirely dependent upon the visits two or three times a week of the McBrayne steamers, but, notwithstanding the representations which have been made, this pier, like one or two on the East Coast of Scotland, is no longer in a position adequately to serve the wide district for which it is supposed to exist. Does my right hon. and gallant Friend propose to consider the question of piers? As he knows, his predecessor made several voyages on the delightful "Minna" to various parts of Scotland, and he visited all those piers. I am credibly informed that he not only visited the piers, but walked gingerly along them, and he made promises, which I have no doubt he relied upon my right hon. and gallant Friend to fulfil when he took over the reins of office, that those piers would be properly reconstructed and that they would no longer be dangerous either to traffic or to the inhabitants of those parts. But as far as I know nothing has been done. It is the same on the East Coast of Scotland. I have in part of my constituency, and no doubt other hon. Members have also, piers in the same condition.
I take the pier of Cromarty, which has been made famous because it is the pier of the birthplace of one of the greatest of Scots, and which during the course of the War was of immense advantage to the people of this country. It also serves a very wide district, but nothing has been done. The predecessors of my right hon. Friend have been in close touch, I understand, with the Public Loans Commissioners and various other bodies. The pier is almost derelict now. There is no railway, no steamers call, and the farmer, who is entirely dependent upon transport for the value of his products, is deprived of good transport because of the fact that no pier is there. There is also the question of dredging. I got a promise from my right hon. Friend that he would send a dredger connected with his Department to Portmahonack Pier. He might very well do that, because most of his constituents use that harbour, and I have no doubt that his good will towards it will be a benefit to
me as well as to himself. There is another harbour which is used by almost every fisherman on the East and West coast of Scotland, and all that is necessary at the present time is that an effective dredger should be sent in order to make it an even safer haven of refuge in the time of stress and storm to the harassed mariners.
There was another new piece of legislation in 1930. I refer to the Drainage Act. Last year the grant for drainage was cut down, and I gather that this year there is no attempt to cut the grant. [Interruption.] I gathered from my hon. Friends that there is an attempt to cut that grant. What grant are they going to allow to remain without being cut down? If agriculture is to flourish, how can it flourish when you never know how much money is to be available, and when the tendency is not to increase a grant but to decrease it on every conceivable occasion? My right hon. Friend's speech was full of optimism, but I do not quite understand the optimism. It explained at great length what was done in agricultural research, a very good thing, and in agricultural marketing, a very good thing, but what is the good of research and marketing if you have not the men upon the soil to benefit by either of those two things? The soil itself cannot benefit unless it is put into a proper condition. One of the things we have always advocated for that purpose has been effective and efficient drainage. If this further cut is to be insisted upon, I shall much regret it. I understand that the amount may be cut from £40,000 to £22,000, which is almost a cut of two-thirds. I regret that that should be so and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to tell us that he is going to approach the Treasury and to make a bold stand in the interests of agriculture, an interest which I know he has much at heart.
My speech has been in the nature of a series of interrogatories and I am very anxious that those interrogatories should be fully and adequately answered. We are entitled to expect from my right hon. Friend, who has taken a sincere and deep interest in agriculture, much more than we would expect from anyone else who has not taken the same interest in it. I feel sure that if he gets a chance our expectations will not be belied. This is
his first official performance as Secretary of State for Scotland dealing with the Scottish Estimates. We all recognise that he is not in a position, probably owing to the short length of time that he has occupied his office, to give us any pontifical pronouncement upon this very important subject, but we give him this word of warning, that, while we admire what he has done in the past in pressing this subject upon his Scottish colleagues and upon the Government, we expect more from him. I hope that in his reply he will not leave us with this report alone, which gives hope to nobody and which encourages no optimism. I hope that he will be able to tell us that he can supplement what is written in the report and hold out some hope to the struggling and striving farmers in Scotland and to the smallholders all over the country.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: The right hon. Gentleman described his speech as a series of interrogations. I would describe it as a series of demands on the Treasury to spend more money. In case an appeal from one Highlander should have too much effect upon the heart of another Highlander I, as a mere Low-lander, would like to put the other side and to appeal for more economy. I want to continue what I had begun to say the other evening when the clock reached the magic hour of eleven. I was referring briefly to the position of the headquarters staff and the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture. I should like to recall to the Committee one or two facts which it is well they should know. The old Board of Agriculture started in the year 1912 and the first full year's figures are for the year 1913. I find that the total staff employed at that time was 86. Subsequently, on account of fresh work put upon the Department and the general expansion of their duties during the War and the immediate post-War period, the staff had risen in 1921 to 392. In that year there fell what is known as the Geddes Axe and in the following year the number of the staff was 314. In subsequent years there has been a steady and persistent rise, so that this year, in spite of all the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman in not filling posts which are still to be filled, the figure is 386. Of that figure 38 are allowed as being required for new and enlarged services such as drainage, settlement, marketing and
census production. If the land drainage is being reduced there seems very small reason for keeping on an enlarged staff to deal with the reduced amount of drainage. Is the census of production to be maintained from year to year or is it merely being taken for one year? If so, there is a possibility of further reduction.
Taking the actual figures of costs, I find that in 1922 the amount that the Department was to spend was 296,327, but this year, in spite of all the right hon. Gentleman's efforts at economy—I congratulate him on what he has done in that respect—the figure is £598,685, a great deal of that expenditure is accounted for by land settlement., of which, we have heard a good deal from the right hon. Gentleman. I mention these figures in order to suggest to him that there is still a field open for economy, and I hope that when we see the Estimates produced next year he will be able to adopt further economies in that section of his activities
4.0 p.m.
There is the other side of the picture. The Secretary of State struck me as being highly optimistic in his description of Scottish agriculture last Wednesday. The broad facts of the case are that land all over Scotland is going out of cultivation. I do not want to worry the Committee with too many figures, but one or two are of so striking a nature that I cannot refrain from quoting them. In the year 1913, the total arable area of Scotland was 3,312,000 acres. In 1931, the total had fallen to 3,061,000 acres. I suggest that that is not a state of affairs which this Committee can view with anything but alarm and dissatisfaction. The Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) have both shown a very great enthusiasm in the matter of smallholdings and land settlement. Given the right man and the right place, I have nothing whatever to say against the smallholder. At the same time, I do think that we can press enthusiasm for those things rather too far. When I hear the statement made that it is an admirable thing to take men from the towns and set them on the land, and when I hear instances quoted of some successful people who have been brought out from the towns, I cannot get out of my mind the fact that during all that time agricultural workers have been dispossessed of their
work, and I cannot help remembering that in the last 20 years the figures show a decrease of some 53,000 agricultural workers of all sorts in Scotland.
I am very glad to think that tailors and others who come from the cities can make a living on the land. I have rejoiced to see the same thing happening in other parts of the Empire. At the same time, I do feel that if we are going to justify the setting up of smallholdings simply on the ground that they are relieving the congestion of unemployment in the cities, we must not forget, as I think the right hon. Gentleman pointed out just now that people who are being trained for the land are going into the cities and increasing the amount of unemployment there. Our first duty, I think, is to ensure that people who are on the land are retained on the land. I think that that is the chief way in which to restore prosperity to agriculture in Scotland, and I should like to add in that connection, that while there is, no doubt, an unsatisfied demand for smallholdings, yet the farmers of larger farms who, after all, have always been, and always must be, the backbone of Scottish agriculture, are finding it more and more difficult to carry on, and it is become increasingly difficult to find tenants for moderate-sized and larger farms as they come into the market. I cannot, therefore, help wondering whether it would not be a wiser policy on the part of the Government to do more to assist that type of farmer, than to concentrate too much on the setting up of smallholdings all over Scotland.
I can quite understand that the Secretary of State did not wish to cover all the grounds which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture covered in his statement about the Government's agricultural policy, but there are one or two passages in his speech which did fill me with a certain sense of alarm and apprehension. There was one short paragraph, in particular, when he was referring to the importance of land settlement. He said:
In that way alone can we redress the balance—now, I suggest to the Committee, in dangerous disequilibrium—between our urban and rural population, and maintain in the countryside in Scotland men and women concentrating on those lines of production for which our agricultural conditions are best adapted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1932; col. 1206, Vol. 267.]
The question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Does he really believe that conditions have so changed in Scotland that the old staple agricultural productions of meat, of milk and of cereals, particularly barley and oats, are no longer those for which Scotland is best adapted, and that we have to look to other things, like poultry, pigs and so on, for the future of our agriculture? That which is interesting Scottish farmers most at the moment is what the Government intend to do for those old established and important branches of our industry.
I do not intend to say anything at the moment about meat, because we know that is one of the questions to be considered at Ottawa, and, therefore, the Government, obviously, cannot say anything at the present moment. Nor do I intend to say anything about milk, because I understand from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that schemes are already under way dealing with that. But I do want to say one word about cereals, and particularly the Scottish cereals of barley and oats. Barley is rapidly ceasing to be grown in Scotland. On the average for the years 1911 to 1915 we had 181,000 acres in Scotland under barley; in 1931 we had 92,000 acres, and, I understand from a preliminary report in the Press the other day, this year the situation will be even worse. What is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going to do about that? Is he assisting his right hon. and gallant Friend, a fellow Scot, in his struggle to find some method of imposing the additional duty on malting barley about which he have heard so much, and which seems to take a very long time to materialise; or is he allowing matters to drift? I sincerely hope that he is on the side of the Scottish agriculturists in this respect.
Then, what is the position of oats? There, again, we see an alarming fall, although this year, I believe, the acreage under oats will be slightly greater than last year. There seems to be a certain number of people who consider that the price which the oat crop fetches is a matter of secondary importance, because it is almost entirely used on the farm or, at any rate, in other branches of agriculture. But, in a very interesting reply which was given to the Noble Lady the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) a short
time ago, the Minister of Agriculture estimated that about 40 per cent, of the total oat crop of Scotland was sold off the farms, and that the total value of that crop so sold was estimated to amount to a sum of £1,660,000. That is no small item, and if that is the average of Scotland, I suggest that in the North-East, at any rate, the average is far more than 40, and would, indeed, prove to be over 50 per cent.—a figure I have had given me by an authority in that part of the world.
Therefore, the price which the producer gets for his oats is a really important matter to him. Nobody is suggesting that we want an exaggerated price, but it is an unfair argument to use that we must take any price we can get for the benefit of other people. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that anyone who is engaged in agriculture should live on the losses of any other branch, and I do not see why any farmer who uses the oats purely for feeding should be allowed to exist at the expense of the farmer who is producing the oats, and is looking for a price when he comes to sell his produce to solve the very difficult question of how to get profits in these hard times.
The great thing of which they are all frightened in the oat-growing counties of Scotland is the old fear of dumping. They never know, when ploughing their land, whether when they come to gather their crops they will not he faced again, as they have been before in recent years, with a catastrophic fall in prices due to the importation of oats grown under uneconomic conditions in some other part of Europe. I hope that the Secretary of State is pressing this point upon his right hon. Friend, and that we shall soon get some pronouncement that the Government intend to take steps to deal with this very real menace. I hope that that time is not very far distant. I hope we shall get a pronouncement before the House rises this Session, because if we do not, it will probably mean that we shall have to wait until the House reassembles in November or at the end of October, and then it will be too late. If we want to see the area at present under oats maintained or, as some of us hope, still further increased, we have got to get a pronouncement before the House rises, and not have to wait till
some future time in the Autumn, when it will undoubtedly be too late.
I do hope the Secretary of State will bear these points in mind, but, as I have said, he takes a very optimistic view of Scottish agriculture. I am afraid he has an optimism which is not shared by the farmers of Scotland. There is a very real feeling in Scotland that nothing very much has been done to assist them. While I am not going so far as to say that, because I think a good deal has been done, at the same time I want to add one word to what the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me said about the spirit of Scottish nationalism. There is a feeling that, whereas the English farmers have had wheat dealt with, the Scottish farmers' cereal crop's have not been dealt with. I have tried, in my own small way, to correct that, because while I believe there is every justification for dealing with wheat first, I have no doubt the Government have every intention of dealing fully with Scottish agriculture later. But the feeing is there, and has to be met. Therefore, I hope the Secretary of State will be able to say something, when he replies later, that will reassure the Scottish farmers, and give those of us who are not in the ranks of revolution a chance of maintaining our position and encouraging our own people in Scotland in the well-founded belief that they are not forgotten, but which they do not realise, living so far away from the centre of our activities here.

Mr. JAMES STUART: I venture to intervene, in view of the shortage of Members of the Opposition present today, because I feel it is necessary, although one Scottish Member is present on the Opposition benches, that there should be a certain amount of opposition from the Government side, and I cannot, for one, join in throwing bouquets at the present Secretary of State for Scotland. I agree, however, for once with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who said that what we want is something more than the nice flowery speeches of the Secretary of State. Whatever the Scottish farmer may feel, I, personally, feel a considerable doubt as to whether the Scottish agriculturist is likely to get much satisfaction from the present Secretary of State for Scotland. For one thing, I
consider that he is extremely fortunate in occupying the proud position he does occupy. He was resurrected, as a result of the national crisis, from the mouldering remains of the Liberal party, and, so far, during his tenure of office, his peak effort has been to oppose in the Cabinet the chief item of Government policy. I disagree entirely with the hon. Member who belongs to my own party, the representative for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), who informed us that the Secretary of State would in the future be able to look at the beautiful portrait of one of his relatives and say that he also has done something for Scottish agriculture. I hope that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh is right. I take a more cautious attitude, but I sincerely hope that the present Secretary of State will realise that Scottish farming is in a very serious condition indeed. It seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman had had his way, if the small minority to which he clings in the Cabinet had had its way, Scottish farming would have nothing to which to pin its faith unless it is the Minister of Agriculture, who may be able to influence the Secretary of State and get something done.
The hon. Member for Peebles (Captain Ramsay) complained last week that Scottish Members were in considerable difficulty in dealing with agricultural questions, not knowing whether they should approach the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture; and that if they went to one they were switched off to the other. I agree with the hon. Member. We are in a most unsatisfactory position. It is difficult to know which Minister we should approach. This state of affairs is creating a great deal of ill-feeling amongst the agricultural population in Scotland, who consider that their interests are not being properly looked after. If I did not feel this matter strongly I should not dream of standing up in this House and try to make a speech; for there is nothing which I dislike more. I should like to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) that the question of malted barley should be dealt with and that a pronouncement should be made as soon as possible. It seems to me that there is considerable distaste on the part of the present Government to take any action in this matter, which has
been going on year after year and nothing ever done. It was a burning question when Mr. Walter Guinness, flow Lord Moyne, was Minister of Agriculture, and he issued a White Paper explaining why it was impossible to deal with it. Since then we have had Government pronouncements to the effect that it would be dealt with. The Government, I think, should make up their minds and tell us whether they intend to do anything about the matter or not.
The same applies to the question of oats. The Lord President of the Council has stated his views on this subject; and I should like to see action taken and a pronouncement made before the House rises. Perhaps the most important branch of agriculture in Scotland for which nothing whatsoever is being done is the producer of meat. This is a most valuable branch of the industry. In this Parliament and in previous Parliaments we have voted money from the taxpayers pockets to assist the beet sugar industry and by other methods we have done much the same thing in regard to wheat. There are certain localities where these measures may be of assistance, but if you take Scottish agriculture generally neither of these measures are of any real assistance. The Scottish taxpayer is paying and the Scottish farmer is receiving no benefit. I hope the Secretary of State will realise that while he opposed tariffs and import duties he supported the wheat subsidy. I am not very keen, about it myself, but having done this for the British farmers I hope he will bear clearly in mind that he is the representative of a Scottish constituency and that the Scottish people and Scottish farmers expect something from him. His grandfather may or may not have done something for Scotland, what we want is that he should do something. I regard the right hon. Gentleman as being extremely fortunate to occupy his present high position. I am not a seeker after office but it seems to me that the party to which one should belong if you want anything in the way of honours and office is the Liberal party. All of that party, in my view are extremely fortunate to hold any position whatsoever. The fact that they are there is entirely due to the national crisis, and we expect the right hon. Gentleman to do something for Scotland and Scottish agriculture.

Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLAR: We regret that owing to the lateness of the hour it was impossible for the Secretary of State to enter into a discussion of the broader aspects of Scottish agricultural policy last week. On that occasion he said that
the immediate agricultural objectives of the Government were particularly appropriate to Scottish conditions,
and he went on to refer to the pioneer work which was being done in that direction. He also stated that
In accordance with this policy the agricultural departments of the Government, and particularly the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, have been concentrating upon such measures as may be taken immediately to help the farmer in his present distress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1932; col. 1201, Vol. 267.]
I hope that this afternoon we shall get from him some amplification of this theme, because there is nothing which the Scottish farmer is at present more concerned to know than the Government's objectives which are appropriate to Scottish conditions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, speaks very specially for Scottish agriculture. We know his interest in the subject, and we should like to hear from him the proposals he has in view in relation to the staple Scottish crops and the Scottish livestock industry. The Secretary of State was a strong supporter of the Wheat Bill. He is no doubt well aware of the very limited extent to which the quota affects Scotland. The wheat produced in Scotland is not more than 2 per cent, of the whole agricultural production, but if we look at the production of livestock and livestock products we find that there represent by far the largest proportion of the production of Scottish agriculture. While cereal farmers have a great interest in knowing the Government's proposals in relation to Scottish cereal crops, I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will also tell us the policy of the Government in regard to the question of livestock farming. I know that it is a matter which is related to the proceedings at Ottawa, and I am glad that we shall have the advantage of the presence at Ottawa of Sir Robert Greig, Secretary to the Scottish Department of Agriculture, who I hope will keep in view the interests of Scottish producers and do something to effect an arrangement which will secure their interests.
Scottish agriculturists in this period of severe depression are only asking for fair conditions of production and as far as possible a first call on the home market. They are anxious that the industry should be self-supporting with a view to increasing employment and thus maintaining a healthy population on the land. The Government have recognised the need for action, and those of us who are particularly interested in the position of Scottish producers hope that we shall get a further statement from the Secretary of State to-day. As a Liberal I take the view that with a National Government in power, which is prepared to view the agricultural problem not from any political standpoint but from the standpoint of national interests, we ought to be in a position to secure a satisfactory arrangement which will enable our agriculturists to produce at a reasonable profit and to make farming pay. Scottish agriculturists have no desire to exploit the consumer. Resolutions have been sent to the Secretary of State from various agricultural societies which have made it perfectly clear that they have no desire to exploit the consumer in any way. They maintain that they ought to be able to secure for themselves a fair return for their work and at the same time satisfy the needs of the consumer in the large towns. Indeed, the interests of both are bound up together, and we must look to a revival of agricultural industry as in a large degree associated with a revival of our great industries in the towns.
Farmers in Scotland have a record for producing the best livestock in the world. This can be seen at the Highland Show at Inverness. In my view it points to the need for developing mixed farming. The breeding and feeding of livestock is one of the most paying lines of the industry, carried on under fair conditions, and would enable us to utilise what are some of the finest natural pastures in the kingdom. I was attracted by a reference in a volume just published by the Noble Lord the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) to the possibility of increasing our agricultural population by increasing the number of those engaged in the livestock industry, which would provide, as the hon. Member points out, not only a means of livelihood but an attractive life as well.
The cultivation of the land, while it should provide a livelihood, does afford,
whatever the townsman may think, a life as well. This, in a country where industrialism has divorced occupation from interest, should be the ballast of national sanity.
4.30 p.m.
The writer goes on to say that wheat growing is being steadily mechanised—which means that it is not only liable to shrink as a source of employment, but tends to come nearer to the factory type in its methods. The care of animals cannot lose its dependence on individual skill or its appeal to individual interest and pride. It is, he points out,, the chief among those subtle influences that bind a contented population to a countryside. I think that is very true.
As to the re-organisation commissions which for the moment are dealing with milk products and pig products, I do not know whether the Secretary of State can tell us how far Scotland is represented on those commissions, and when we may expect a report from them. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the marketing schemes to which effect is likely to be given in the immediate future, amongst others a possible marketing scheme for livestock, particularly fat stock. Is it proposed to call for the cooperation of the very large body of skilled salesmen and auctioneers throughout Scotland who have rendered great service to the industry and whose position as experts in connection with marketing should be recognised and taken into account under any such schemes? I was a little disappointed that no reference was made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the position of the agricultural workers, particularly in the present depression. This is a very important element in the agricultural problem. The agricultural workers are the backbone of the industry and they represent a highly skilled and a very worthy section of our population. I understand that within recent times many of them have been paid off and that they are going into the towns to swell the army of the unemployed.
I strongly support the view already put forward this afternoon that while in exceptional cases townsmen may make excellent smallholders, it is our duty to see that in the first instance the experienced agricultural worker is utilised on our smallholdings. These men have
been trained on the land; their wives and their daughters are specially skilled in dairying and other agricultural pursuits; and in my judgment it is they who have formed the most successful class of smallholders in Scotland. They ought to be given the first preferences. It is interesting to note, from the returns in the Department's Report, that of the agricultural scholarships offered under the recent scheme 21 were awarded either to bona-fide agricultural workers or to the children of smallholders or crofters. That shows how keen they are as a class to equip themselves for their duties. There is much yet to be done to attract our agricultural workers to farm service by the improvement of the condition of their houses and of the conditions under which they work in certain districts.
As to land settlement there has undoubtedly been growing evidence of the demand for land, and one welcomes the individual successes that have been referred to by the Secretary of State, mentioned in the report of the Department; but it is only right to point out that in certain districts the settlers have actually to encounter many serious difficulties, where land is poor and waterlogged, and in certain cases where early promises which were made to the applicants, who were ex-service men, were not carried out. I speak particularly of a settlement of smallholders at Thirdpart Crail, in the Division of East Fife. I have watched that settlement with great interest for a period of years. The smallholders have had a very serious struggle. In some cases the land has proved to be very poor and waterlogged, the buildings which were put up have not been built on sufficiently substantial lines and are not properly constructed, the drains have given trouble, and there is hardly a decent farm road on the whole settlement. In wet weather I have had the greatest difficulty in getting access to some of the holdings because of the condition of the roads.
This is a matter to which I have formerly referred. I received a petition from the smallholders on the subject of their difficulties, and the Secretary of State was good enough to go into the matter. It is a subject which requires further consideration. There were also difficulties in regard to water supply. In this instance the supply was con-
taminated, and a filter was put in. It is absolutely essential that in a matter of that kind no doubts should exist. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are settlements of smallholders which require very sympathetic handling, and cases of men who have had a hard struggle and who must be allowed every opportunity of making good. They should have the feeling that the Department is acting in the closest and most sympathetic collaboration with them.
I welcome the Order which has been made during the past year preventing the importation of potatoes from European France. This was a matter about which our potato producers felt considerable anxiety, owing to the Colorado beetle. Under this Order, which became effective from 15th March, potatoes from European France are prohibited from entering this country. But the right hon. Gentleman should consider the matter a little further. I previously raised the question of the dangers arising from disease and contamination of imports of foreign vegetables and potatoes. I have here a resolution from the Highland and Agricultural Society, dealing with the question of foot and mouth disease. I have no doubt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has received a copy of it. The resolution, which calls for the prohibition of the entry of vegetables into this country from countries where foot and mouth disease is prevalent, is founded upon a review of the facts which, I hope, will carry conviction to the Secretary of State, because it is brought out in this statement that there was strong circumstantial evidence that the outbreak in Northern Ireland last June was traceable to a cargo of Dutch broccoli landed at Leith towards the end of May. That view was accepted by the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, but it has not been accepted by the Minister of Agriculture for Great Britain. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep in view our Scottish interests in this matter, and that he will remember that there has been a great number of serious outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in countries which are sending produce to this country. In such cases I think effect should be given to the representations made, and that there should be a complete prohibition of all such produce.
I would like to pay a tribute to the work of the women's rural institutes, which are referred to in the report. The work done by these institutes throughout Scotland, and especially in Fife, where the institute movement has been very active, has done much to sweeten the life of country village residents and to quicken interest throughout the rural districts. In 1931 the institutes numbered 893, with a membership of 45,000. They are closely associated with the Handicraft Guild, which has done so much to train many of our rural workers. We owe a debt of gratitude to the large body of voluntary workers who are associated with this effort.
I trust that as a result of the discussions to-day we may obtain from the Secretary of State a little more definite information as to the position of the Scottish producers, and that we may also be enabled to satisfy our constituents and the public in Scotland that we who have upon our shoulders the responsibility of dealing with these matters in this House, are determined to see that our Scottish agriculturists get a fair deal. We can assure the Secretary of State of our hearty support in every effort that he can make to assist them in these anxious times.

Mr. BURNETT: In the first place, I would like to endorse the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Sir J. D. Millar) and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) on the subject of livestock. I represent a town where livestock bulks largely, where a great many are dependent upon the prosperity of animal husbandry for their livelihood. Livestock producing is perhaps, next to milk products, the most important, the most successful branch of agriculture. As the hon. Member for Kincardine and West Aberdeen (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) said, in most parts of Scotland the area of cultivated land is decreasing, but in Aberdeenshire there has been an increase in recent years. We all approve of what the Secretary of State has said on the subject of agricultural research. We have benefited very much from that in the North of Scotland, from the work of the College of Agriculture. At the Rowett Institute inquiry has been made as to the effect of diet upon the nutrition of animals, and now further inquiry is being made: at the new Institute set up
at Craigiebuckler into the effect of soil upon pasture. This research should be of the greatest advantage to livestock farmers. There is no doubt that at present livestock farming is in a very critical position, and that farmers are feeling the present pinch very much. We are all receiving letters from farmers stating what they think about matters. Here is a letter I received this morning, in which the writer says:
If something is not done quickly farming is down and out.
Another farmer writes to me:
Please do something at once to help us poor farmers or it will be too late. We cannot carry on as things are at the present time.
We are meeting a severe blast of competition from South America. In the Argentine climatic conditions are good, there is a plentiful water supply, droughts never occur, and steers can be killed at the age of 2¾ years. There are up-to-date refrigerating works and the beef is sent to this country chilled according to the most modern methods. It arrives here in good condition; the cost of transit is small, and it can be sold in our market here at from two-thirds, to three-quarters of the price realised by home beef. That is the problem which we have to face and there are two ways of meeting it. On the one hand we may consider that it is a matter that cannot be helped; that the conditions in South America enable the farmers there to raise cattle more cheaply than we can do it here, and that the only thing we can do is to protect our farmers—to control imports. That, of course, is a question which we cannot discuss on this occasion, but it will no doubt be discussed at Ottawa.
The other way of meeting the situation is to cut down the cost of production in this country so that our farmers may be able to compete with South America. The question is how this can be done and what the present Government is doing in connection with that matter. Going through this report, we find, of course, reference to research, and no doubt the farmers will gain from that research. But the only other expedient suggested in this connection in the report is on page 74 where there is a reference to the question of the grading of beef. This question of grading is a very
difficult one. As regards the marking of beef I think there is general agreement among both farmers and distributors that foreign beef should be marked before it comes into this country. It should be marked right down the side, so that we can know at once what is foreign and what is British beef. I have tried to get opinions from a number of people as to whether grading is benefiting the farmer—the producer—in any way. The report says:
The scheme has proved advantageous to the producer. It has tended to steady the price of Scottish beef at a higher level, and 'has made known the true merits of Scottish beef to a wide public.
I hold that the merits of Scottish beef were very well known before grading was ever thought of. Our beef was sent down, from Aberdeen and elsewhere, to Smith-field market, and short sides of Scottish beef realised the highest prices in that market. Grading has done nothing to increase the price. In fact the price has been going down, as food prices generally have been going down, recently. I should like to quote some of the letters which I have received from farmers on this subject. One large producer of livestock writes:
The majority of farmers are absolutely up against grading, but they all think that the foreigner should be compelled to mark his beef both with quality and country of origin. Why put us to the expense of grading beef?
Another farmer, who submitted the question to a meeting of an organisation of farmers, writes:
The feeling of the meeting was that marking and grading of home meat would not help to raise the price to the producer. What we think would do more good would be to have all the foreign meat marked with the country of origin and sold in separate shops"—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not pursue that point. He will no doubt recollect, if he was here earlier in the afternoon, that a Bill has been introduced for the purpose of dealing with that question which is obviously a matter requiring legislation.

Mr. BURNETT: I, of course, bow to your ruling, Captain Bourne, but I would like to make a reference to the question of prices if that is in order.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Are we to assume that any discussion, such as the hon. Member for
North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) has up to now been pursuing, in regard to the grading of Scottish beef and in reference to something which has already been done, is to be ruled out of order, because of a Private Member's Bill intoduced this afternoon.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member must not understand that from my Ruling. What I was ruling out of order was a suggestion as to the compulsory marking of foreign meat. That obviously requires legislation but references to the grading of meat, in so far as it is covered by existing legislation, are certainly not out of order.

Mr. STUART: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the Opposition asked that this Vote should be put down today may I inquire is there any obligation upon Members of the Opposition to be in attendance at this discussion, or is it at their discretion?

Mr. MACLEAN: May I explain to the hon. Member. He knows perfectly well that in Scotland the Labour party went under during the crisis, but we have done something which has never been done before in the House of Commons. Instead of doing as an Opposition is entitled to do, and putting forward on these Estimates only matters which we ourselves desire to raise, we have taken into consideration the wishes of Members in other parts of the Committee as far as these Estimates are concerned. We asked them what matters they desired to discuss and we have put down Votes which would enable Members, irrespective of party, to raise those points which they desire to raise in regard to Scottish affairs and to discuss the matters in which they are interested. I think that any little reflection on the Opposition which seems to be conveyed by the hon. Member's reference ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. STUART: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I should like very sincerely to congratulate him upon his single-handed effort—

Mr. GROVES: Although I am a Member for an English constituency may I remark that those who are in attendance on the Opposition side represent a larger proportion of their party than hon. Members opposite represent of theirs.

Mr. STUART: I am afraid I cannot work that out at the moment. My arithmetic is not equal to it.

Mr. BURNETT: I shall confine my remarks entirely to the question of grading which is a really important matter, and I want the Committee to consider a view which has been submitted to me by retail butchers, by sellers of high class Scottish meat in London. Their view is that as a result of grading there has been no additional demand for Home beef, and this contention is borne out by the figures of imports as published at Smithfield Market every week. In this list is published the percentage of foreign meat which is brought into this country. I have tried to follow these lists back for some time. I have made out an average for the last complete month and compared it with the corresponding months in 1929, 1930 and 1931. I find that in 1929 the imports of foreign meat amounted to 82.5 per cent.; in 1930, 83.3 per cent.; in 1931, 84.3 per cent. In 1932 there is a slight fall and the figure is 83.6 per cent., but over the whole period there is a rise in the amount of imported beef of rather more than 1 per cent.
It is continually said to me by those acquainted with the trade that good meat grades itself and that no mark or grading which is put upon it conveys the exact degree of quality. There are all sorts of grades. One person likes meat fat, another likes meat lean. One person likes it well "marbled," and so forth and butchers tell me that it would be exceedingly difficult for anyone to tell exactly what grade a side of beef ought to be, much more difficult than to grade the live animal. When a side of beef has been cut up, as soon as the butcher puts his knife into it he can tell at once what kind of meat it is, and he is the man who must ultimately grade it. If he could not do that he might as well "down tools" at once. I was anxious to bring these views on the question of grading before the Committee because this is a matter on which many of my constituents feel very strongly. As I say they are all in favour of marking foreign beef. That is a necessity if we are to know what is the foreign beef and what is the home beef. But there is a strong feeling among those who have had to deal with the matter that the grading scheme has proved a failure; that it has been,
not only useless but misleading, and that we ought to revert to a system of marking only the imported meat coming into this country. If we want to tackle the whole problem involving the position of the livestock farmers in this country we will have to do it by other means. We will require to adopt stronger measures before we can restore the farmers to that prosperity which we all wish them to enjoy.

Commander COCHRANE: Hon. Members who are intimate with those subjects, have already dealt with the questions of cereals and meat, but I think it is not an exaggeration to say that in the mind of every Member of this Committee is the desire to see more settlement on the land, and a larger rural population in Scotland. It is to the question of land settlement and smallholdings that I propose to limit my remarks. I regret that I have not the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary for purely agricultural holdings, but I can imagine conditions in which, I think, I would try to be just as enthusiastic as we know them to be on the subject of providing facilities for people to live in the country. My right hon. Friend in his opening speech dwelt on the tenacity of the smallholders during this time of crisis, and pointed out how they had been able to weather the storm better almost than any other section of the community. If he analysed the cases in which that tenacity has been most marked, I think he would find that they fall into two classes.
There is one comparatively small class of those who have smallholdings coupled with jobs under the Forestry Commissioners. I think there are only a few hundreds of them those in all Scotland. I think the right hon. Gentleman, would find that the remainder of the cases were those of smallholders whose holding is a part-time job, and who fortuitously have some other employment. It is plain that in these times of difficulty a man who is not pinned down to one form of employment is in a better position than a man who is entirely dependent on one form of activity whether in agriculture or some other industry. My right hon. Friend has given illustrations of the kind of men who have gone on the land from the towns and have been successful. He has mentioned the cases of the tailor, the miner, the cabinet maker. I agree with
the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) as to the desirability of that development. Those particular men have been successful but when we look at the problem as a whole, is it not true that it would be easier for those people if, when going on to the land, to take over a smallholding, they could carry at any rate some part of their other employment with them? Who would then be in a stronger position than they?
5.0 p.m.
Take the case of the cabinet-maker who goes to a smallholding and is dependent on a few acres and on 100 or 200 chickens, and take the case of the same man who has the holding and, at the same time, has some alternative employment either for himself or for other members of his family. I do not think there can be any doubt that this provision of alternative employment to agriculturists in Scotland is of prime importance. The conditions which we ought to try to fulfil, or, rather, the principle on which we ought to try to proceed is that of giving economic security—that is to say, that a man may know where the next week's money is coming from—coupled with economic independence. That, I believe, is of just as great importance when you are dealing with the population in Scotland.
A good deal has been said about the depopulation which has gone on in our country districts. I believe that it is a mistake to think that in olden times that larger population was entirely dependent on agriculture. Certainly in the parts of Scotland which I know best there are everywhere remains of what were small but flourishing industries throughout the rural districts. They have gone out, many of them, I think, squeezed out by the invention of the steam engine, the boiler, and so on, but it is only since that change has take place and since these small industries have to some extent ceased to function in our countryside that we have adopted a plan of segregating agriculture in one watertight compartment and putting all our other productive industries into another; and they very rarely meet.
I am not, of course, referring to the Rules of Debate in this House, but, as a matter of fact, we have got into the habit of thinking of agriculture as being something quite apart from other productive industries in this country. I do
not think that any advantage has come to anybody from that way of regarding the problem, and if you take the circumstances of to-day, you will find that, in Canada, the wheat-grower is becoming uneasy. He is no longer willing to be dependent for his entire livelihood on the production of wheat, for which he can find no market. He is trying to turn to other things, and I am sure that that same argument will very shortly apply, shall I say, to the breeder of pigs in Denmark. He also will find that in these days it is not possible to make a steady and satisfactory livelihood if you are dependent entirely on one form of production. If there had been no change in the circumstances in the past few years, it might be idle to argue in this way, but I would suggest to the Committee that there have been important changes.
In Scotland you see nearly everywhere these steel towers put up in connection with the electrical grid. Some people regard them merely as an eyesore, but I confess that when I see these gaunt and rather grim steel erections, I am somewhat inclined to go and give them a friendly pat, because I believe that through the wires which these towers are tested to carry there ought to flow the lifeblood for a regeneration of our rural life in Scotland. If we are to make a full use of the land of Scotland, I believe that it must be used as far as possible to provide an alternative to other forms of employment. I am certain that there is nothing in logic or common sense in continuing to regard agriculture as something apart from our other productive industries.
Take the position of Scotland to-day. We are losing some of our industries; they are moving down to England, but our agriculture cannot follow these productive industries to England, fortunately for us. It is true that our agricultural population is decreasing, but if we are to retain other productive industries in Scotland, is it not desirable that we should link them up as closely as possible with agriculture, by giving a common employment to the people in both, thereby preventing this flow of other industries across the border to the South? I know of no other way in which that can be. done, but I believe that to the extent to which it can be done, we shall be able to find a policy for land settlement and smallholdings which does
offer the greatest chance of success, which indeed offers the only possibility of a permanent solution of those difficulties, to which I cannot refer this afternoon, which are pressing upon the agriculture of every country in the world. Every country is trying to find a solution of its agricultural and other productive difficulties, and I make no apology for suggesting to this Committee that in the conditions in Scotland and with the mentality of the people of Scotland, it may be possible for us to suggest a solution of what is a world-wide problem which will commend itself to all other peoples of British extraction.

Sir MURDOCH MacDONALD: I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Report from the Department of Agriculture which has been presented to the Committee this afternoon; and I think, along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Sir J. Duncan Millar), who spoke earlier in the Debate, we have every reason to congratulate our-selves on the presence of Sir Robert Greigg as head of the Department under the Secretary of State, for conducting it in the manner in which it has been conducted in the last few years. I quite appreciate that in these difficult times it is impossible for the Department to carry out all the schemes which it may feel to be of benefit to agriculture, yet I think there is one scheme which should be pressed. It will not cost much, and it may save a great deal. In former years, previous to the land agitation which took place in the Highlands of Scotland, the Island of Skye was divided up into large sheep farms, owned by individual owners and farmed by individual farmers. These individual farmers, owing to the largeness of the stocks which they were able to carry, were able to deal themselves successfully, monetarily., with their stocks and to dispose of them and obtain the best market prices then ruling.
Since that time a great change has taken place. The large farms have, quite rightly, and in many cases with the sympathetic acquiescence of the proprietors, been handed over to the local people, who either themselves or their immediate ancestors had been dispossessed to make room for these same sheep farms and to lay the foundations of what is now the modern sheep farm-
ing industry. In recent years the Department of Agriculture, under the Secretary of State, has very nearly completed its operations in the Isle of Skye, and very few large farms remain now in the possession of one man. They have all, or nearly all, been handed over to local communities. The sheep now owned by these new landowners are in a great number of cases held on the common stock principle, but, owing to the want of liquid funds, they are not able in the present state of agriculture to dispose of their product to the best advantage. As a consequence, an organised marketing system for the sheep and other livestock products of this island is especially desirable.
A recent inspection by a division of the Scottish Land Court has exemplified what is happening and the necessity for organised marketing in the Island of Skye. Indeed, if one looks at the short summary of that report which appears in the "Scotsman," it would appear as if, while the actual number of sheep on the various farms has been increasing, the actual product for sale has been decreasing, which indicates a very serious state of affairs and that the farmers, these new landowners, have not been able to winter their stock, owing to the want of money, in the normal way that the farmers were able to do in former years. It is, therefore, to be hoped that the Secretary of State will carefully consider the report of this division of the Land Court, and that he will influence his officials to press forward the provision of a scheme of organised marketing; and I shall be glad to hear whether or not he is able to do so.
A further point in favour of such a scheme is this: A great number of these new landowners entered into possession of their sheep stocks at valuations which were very many times the present value of the same sheep stocks. Even the report of the Department of Agriculture, on page 19, says that the value of a certain class of sheep has fallen by one-third, and even in cases by one-half, of what it was last year, and that this has occurred after quite a number of almost disastrous falls in previous years. It is perfectly true that the Department, with the consent of the Treasury, on repre-
sentations made—and I have had some little share in making those representations myself, so I am aware of them—have reduced the original values of the sheep stocks and have also reduced the amount of money due for the loans made, but even the new terms thus arranged, owing to the extraordinary falls in the value of the sheep stocks in the present circumstances, have again become extremely onerous, and the farmers may possibly be incapable of the fulfilment of their original obligations on even their present terms, which are quite different from those originally made when the sheep stock was at such a high value, a few years ago, when these farms were purchased from their original owners and handed over to these people.
I must say that Skye men fully realise that, having entered into bargains, they are in honour bound to do their utmost to implement them, and while there is a limit in this respect, in that if the stock does not produce sufficient money to liquidate the debt, some arrangement will have to be made, yet, if such a scheme as the reorganisation of marketing can be carried through by the Secretary of State, then both parties, both the landowners and the State, would benefit. The State would secure the fulfilment of the engagements now entered into, and the people would be able to earn a livelihood from the sheep which they possess. It is only the Department of Agriculture which can best carry out such a suggestion, and the Secretary of State might consider whether the Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission provided for in the Act of last year could not be formed for the Island of Skye to deal with livestock.
I am glad to know that the Department, notwithstanding the difficult times, have not altogether abandoned the duty of attempting to settle people on the land. I hope, however, that in forthcoming settlements, particularly in the Highland districts of Scotland, where farms are being broken up into smaller units, every attention will be paid to the selection of the new landholders so as to ensure that they actually reside on the holdings when they get them. I appreciate the difficulty of selecting tenants, but I am sure that if an obligation be entered into that the tenant must reside on the holding as well as hold it, the selection will be a much easier matter for the Department.
I would like to draw the Secretary of State's attention to the matter of intensive agriculture in the extreme Western Highlands. In that area the climate is mild and temperate in comparison with the Central Highlands, and it has been represented to me by a lady who is a native of that district and has travelled much throughout the world that there is in that region the possibility of supplying some of those things, such as flowers and fruit, which our great cities are now importing from the Continent. If the Department will give sympathetic support to the organisation and classification, and particularly to the carriage of such produce, my friend, who has written long and valuable notes on the subject, and has been endeavouring to interest the womens' rural institutes in the matter, will be glad to place her knowledge and active support at the disposal of the Department. I hope that the Department will delegate someone to look into the subject and help with advice as to what produce should be grown and give assistance in the marketing. I trust that the Secretary of State will sympathetically consider this suggestion.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: The first thing one ought to do is to thank the Labour party for giving us an opportunity of having this discussion on agriculture in Scotland. We are grateful to them for that, but they have rather spoilt their action by showing that they are not very greatly interested in the subject.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is mistaken in his assumption that the Labour party have no interest in agriculture. We put down for discussion the subjects which we believed would be of the greatest interest to Scottish Members in all parties with the hope that such a step would both prove satisfactory to the Members and produce a most interesting discussion, and not because the Labour party are not keenly interested in agriculture.

Mr. SMITH: I apologise to the hon. Member. I am glad that the Socialist party are beginning at last to take a greater interest in agriculture than they have done before. Many Socialist Members are now apparently beginning to realise that agriculture is really of importance to the country and cannot be allowed to go under altogether. We were rather delighted that there was to be an.
opportunity of discussing agricultural questions, because those of us who represent agricultural constituencies and agriculturists throughout the country have been rather distressed about what has happened since the National Government took office. There is no doubt that when the Government first took office the country felt that at last the interests of agriculture would not be forgotten, and there was great hope that something would be done for the industry. That hope was a reasonable one because of the statements which were made by the leaders of the various sections of the Government. The Leader of the Conservative party definitely said that something must be done for agriculture, and the other leaders made similar statements, but since the National Government have been in office we have been waiting and waiting to find out what their broad agricultural policy is, and we have not yet heard it.
At the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech on Wednesday we were led to believe that at last we were to hear the broad objectives of the Government in regard to agriculture. He told us that the Government were doing something for Scottish conditions, but, when we reached the end of the speech, we knew no more about what the Government were going to do than we did ot the beginning. I hope that the Minister will to-day be able to give us some broad outline of the Government's objectives. The Secretary of State 1ms a hard job because he has to think of other things beside agriculture, but we know that he is capable of concentration on this subject from the interest that he took in it when the present Minister of Agriculture occupied his office. In 1930 the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
Many things, hold the farmer back. There is lack of capital, lack of confidence, lack of organisation, and lack of credits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1930; col. 1493, Vol. 233.]
I know that his view has somewhat altered, as he showed when supporting the wheat quota, but I feel sure that he agrees that; these four elements are still the basis of the troubles in agriculture. The Secretary of State said last Wednesday:
The immediate agricultural objectives of the Government are particularly appropriate to Scottish conditions, and, indeed, we in Scotland have already undertaken a Considerable amount of pioneer work in that
direction. In accordance with this policy the agricultural Departments of the Government, and particularly the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, have been concentrating upon such measures as may be taken immediately to help the farmer in his present distress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1932; col. 1205, Vol. 267.]
What is being done with regard to meat and grading and marking, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett)? I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will take some steps to put into effect the report which has been published on this subject. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen said that he had come to the conclusion, after careful examination, that the grading of meat was absolutely wrong and no good to the producer or consumer. That may be the opinion of the hon. Member, but I ask the Committee not to take his opinion. A committee of competent men was set up to inquire into the question, and one paragraph of their report reads:
The representative bodies of British agriculture and the bulk of those butchers and caterers who sell mainly high-class home-killed beef are convinced that the scheme is of advantage both to the British beef industry and to the public.
I hope that the Minister will give us some information as to the line that he will take on this report, because this system will be of vital benefit to the farmers. I hope, too, that the Minister is considering the resolution which was passed with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. It is rather important when the Northern Ireland Government have themselves accepted the findings which have been arrived at as to the source of the infection that we should seriously consider whether something cannot be done on the lines of that resolution.
I stress upon the Minister the necessity of doing something with regard to malting barley. We had a definite promise that something would be done either by means of a tax or a quota. All these months have passed, and yet we do not know whether it is to be a tax or a quota. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) referred to the marking of barley. I understand that other countries differentiate in the duties that they put on grain, and I should like to know if the Secretary of State has gone into the question of the colouring of the grain. It is of the greatest importance to Scot-
land, and he ought to know about it almost more than the Minister of Agriculture, and we should like to know if something can be done along those lines. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman also see his way to do something for the producers of pearl barley? Up to a short time ago an order issued by the Minister allowed barley growers to treat barley with sulphur dioxide in order to make it a better colour. I understand that representations have been made to the Minister on this point in order to allow the use of sulphur dioxide. The report of the Department of Health for Scotland states, on page 35:
Imports of continental barley to a large extent have supplanted the Scottish output of pot and pearl barleys. At the close of the year the question of amending the Regulations was under consideration.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to take some action. It may be a small thing, but it will be of some assistance to the unfortunate farmers, and it is the duty of Parliament to do every little thing they can in order to help agricultural interests.
5.30 p.m.
I press again the point which was made by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Western Aberdeen (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) that something should be done to stop the dumping of imported food. There is no necessity for us to import any oat products, for we can, from the amount of oats produced in this country, supply all the oat products required. I will give the Minister some figures from the Board of Trade returns. In January, 1930, we imported 63,000 cwts. of oat products; in January, 1931, 70,000 cwts.; and in January, 1932, 84,000 cwts. In February, 1930, we imported 41,000 cwts.; in February, 1931, 74,000 cwts.; and in February, 1932, 97,000 cwts. In March, 1930, we imported 43,000 cwts.; in March, 1931, 68,000 cwts., and in March, 1932, 77,000 cwts. Cannot the Minister see if something can be done to stop this importation? Further, I would press on the Minister to give us some information as to when the agricultural credits scheme is to be brought into operation. The Socialist party gave financial assistance to the smallholders, and it is very hard that the Agricultural Credits Act should have been on the Statute Book so long without anything having been done to help the farmers. There is many a
farmer who is just hanging on in the hope that he may be able to get some assistance from that Act, and I ask the Minister to give us some encouragement that it will soon be put into force.
Finally, I would press the Estimates themselves on the attention of the Minister. We are spending over £500,000 in connection with agriculture in Scotland. That is a reduction of £142,000, but of that cut of £142,000, not more than £2,000 has been made at the expense of the staff of the Department. The whole of the rest, £140,000, is really taken from the industry itself and I submit that that is a perfectly ridiculous position. On page 152 of the Estimates will be found the salaries, wages and allowances of the headquarters' staff-nothing to do with the inspectorate, or the seed testing and plant registration station, or smallholdings, or the surveying staff. For that headquarters' staff alone we are asked to supply more money than we were last year. Last year the expenditure on that staff amounted to £71,457, and this year it is £71,725. The expenditure on the legal staff is up by £1,000, and then there is £3,000 for the messengers, which is the same amount as last year. There is an expenditure of somewhere about £77,000 for administration expenses out of a total expenditure of £581,000, representing 12½ per cent., and I say that is too high. I have left out of account the expenditure on the inspectorate and other things, which may be said to be for the direct benefit of the farmers.
I would like to show how the saving of £140,000 has been arrived at. There is a reduction of £3,000 or £4,000 in the money given for the improvement of livestock, though surely if there is one thing more than another we ought to do it is to improve our livestock, and yet we are reducing the grants given in respect of bulls, boars, etc. It is a tragic thing that we should be spending £4,000 more on the Macaulay Institute for soils. I have no objection to money being spent on. research, but what the Minister has told us about the Macaulay Institute is that it is investigating the use of peat soils for the growing of crops, in order to bring more land into cultivation. The land already under cultivation is doing badly enough, without our starting to put people on peat soil. It is a funny thing that we should find £4,000 more for this
new institute while at the same time cutting down, the grants to old institutes which are doing such good work. There is also a reduction on the expenditure on land drainage.
Those Me examples of expenditure which directly assists the. farmer, and yet we are cutting it down to the tune of £110,000. When we come to the Appropriation s-in-Aid we find that we expect to take more money from the farmers. The receipts from the licensing of bulls are expected to yield £2,000 more this year, which will come out of the pockets of the farmers; and in other cases in which fees are charged we are looking for greater receipts. That is not the way to deal with agriculture. As my hon. Friend the: Member for Kincardine and West Aberdeen has already said, in 1913 we had a Department of 89, and this year it is 386. If it is necessary to cut down the expenditure by £142,000 the staff of the Department ought to bear a bigger proportion of that cut. I ask the Minister to see whether in the months to come he cannot do something more for the direct benefit of agriculturists and not spend so much on the inspectorate and the headquarters' staff.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I rise to ask the Secretary of State to direct his attention to page 63 of his annual report on agriculture. He will find there a report of his officials on the growing of sugar beet in Scotland in 1930.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of sugar beet does not arise on this Estimate. The Estimate for sugar beet is for the whole of Great Britain; there is no separate Estimate for Scotland; and the Minister could not make a reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir G. COLLINS: I was not proposing to raise the question of sugar beet. I was anxious to show, from the information supplied by the Secretary of State on page 6S of the Report, the cost of the sugar beet grown in Scotland in 1930; and I submit that if the Secretary of State is in order in presenting this Report I am in order, if I keep strictly to the exact words and figures contained in that Report on page 63. During the year 1930 10,000 tons of sugar beet were grown in Scotland, and the wholesale price was about £190,000. On page 63 we learn that the State paid—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have listened to the hon. Member developing his point. He is now raising the question of the sugar beet subsidy, and that is not a matter to be raised on the Scottish Estimates. Because a certain service is mentioned in the Vote of a Department it is not neecssarily in order to discuss it on that Vote.

Sir G. COLLINS: I bow to your Ruling. If you rule that I am not allowed to comment on the information which the Secretary of State has provided for Members of this Committee, and draw attention to facts which are not apparent in the Report, I will resume my seat.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is a matter which must come on the appropriate Vote, and that is the Vote for the sugar beet subsidy, which is No. 9 of this Class.

Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. Is it not in order in this Debate for my hon. Friend to show that the soil of Scotland is not suitable for growing sugar beet? If there is a special reference to sugar beet in this Report I submit, with all due deference, that it is in order to show that there is a waste of public money.

Sir G. COLLINS: We have spent two or three hours in discussing the soil of Scotland, and there have been arguments about one type of cereal being grown and the rearing of live stock. I am anxious to direct attention to what the soil of Scotland produced in 1930. I know how proper your Ruling is that no reference should be made to the sugar beet subsidy and I will try to avoid those words. Some 10,000 tons of sugar beet were grown in that year. The wholesale price was about £190,000, and the subsidy was about £130,000. To find out the cost of the sugar to the public we must deduct the amount paid in preferential duty, which was about £58,000. Therefore, the cost of this sugar beet grown in Scotland—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting back to the subsidy. In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) the difficulty is, as he knows very well, that in Committee of Supply we must not discuss a matter for which there is a separate Vote in the Estimates.
The sugar beet subsidy is in a Vote for the whole of Great Britain, and is not divided between England and Scotland, and the appropriate place to raise any question about sugar beet is on the particular Vote, Vote 9, which is not before us at the moment.

Earl of DALKEITH: I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland paid so little regard to the actual condition of agriculture in Scotland in the course of his speech, and I am also sorry that the spokesmen of the Government do not more frequently devote more attention to the prices in the industry in Scotland, especially the prices of live stock and the return obtained from wool, lambs, meat, milk and so on. If the Government are not yet in a position to announce what steps they are going to take to benefit agriculture in Scotland, at least they might show some recognition of the very serious condition that exists while asking the farmers to carry on and to await the further steps that are in contemplation. Reference was made by the Secretary of State to the marketing scheme and also to the proposed scheme for the marking of meat, but it must take some considerable time to formulate those schemes, and get them approved, whereas the present is a time of very great emergency, and we need proposals which are suited to that emergency. I feel that less favourable treatment is being accorded to those who are engaged in production from the land, whether it be live stock or timber, pit props, meat or milk. The same people find themselves hit several times over, and those who are responsible for providing employment in agricultural districts have an unnecessarily difficult time. We have our Debates here and discuss figures and returns, but the actual state of the industry and its requirements is almost entirely ignored.
Since this Debate started last week many agriculturists in Scotland have acquainted me with the fact that they are very strongly opposed to the high proportion of the expenditure which goes on the staff of the Department, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Department will take steps between them to keep it down. There is also the same criticism regarding the amount of money spent on land settlement in Scotland, or, rather, the pro-
portion of the money which they consider has not been well spent. The hon. Member for East Fife (Sir J. Duncan Millar) drew our attention to the many difficulties of successful land settlement. The necessity for careful selection of holdings that are suitable cannot be emphasised too often. The unsuccessful holdings are either bad or difficult and almost impossible; the buildings are not always satisfactory and suitable and there is not always a good choice of occupiers of those holdings. By attention to those matters we can avoid undue extravagance.
I would ask those who are most enthusiastic for land settlement not to be led away too much by endeavours to increase the numbers of holdings so fast as to make it uncertain that they are as satisfactory as they possibly can be. Oases have often been brought before me by smallholders, where greater sympathy might have been shown by our representatives in the Government or in the Board of Agriculture. Cases are well known where buildings have been unsatisfactory or, more likely, where the water supply has been deficient. If action by the Board could be rather more smooth and could meet the absolutely necessary requirements, those whom they settle on the land would have a more congenial occupation. Once the buildings are erected on behalf of the Government, the occupier is probably told: "We are no longer concerned with you, and you must try and squeeze something out of the ground landlord if you can do so." I hope, therefore, that such objections as one experiences against the system of dual ownership will be precluded in the future, if possible, by doing away with the system which has not worked satisfactorily.
The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the fortunate fact that there had been very few failures in cases of people settled on the land. Is this partly due to the fact that rents have not in more cases been economic rents, and that the taxpayer has really contributed considerably towards the rents for those holdings? Luckily, failures have not been frequent, but the position of many smallholders to-day is very difficult indeed and they are very near the line, and steps must be taken to help them, just as much as in the case of the larger farmers. Mention has been made of the importance
of expenditure in regard to research. While we all realise the greater necessity for this, we should also recognise that much good work can be done, and is being done, without State expenditure necessarily, or assistance from public funds. As one privileged recently to visit the agricultural research sub-station which is being conducted by the Imperial Chemical Industries, I can testify to the very excellent results and valuable discoveries which are being made under private enterprise, and, as far as I know, without the use of any public funds. I feel sure that there are great practical results from this research station, and I dare say from many other similar ones, in regard to the best management of grasslands, the best and most economic methods for the improvement of crops, and the intensive uses and combinations of different types of manure.
I hope that Scotland will get some useful advantage from those enterprises that are running without State funds, as I feel sure they will, as well as from those research stations which are being carried on under the Government. There is scope for more work of this kind without the use of funds from the Exchequer. I ask the Secretary of State and his colleagues if they will consider very sympathetically and try to give encouragement to those who are engaged in farming in Scotland.

Mr. McKIE: This is one of those rare occasions when the House of Commons transforms itself for a few hours into the Scots Parliament. I welcome the opportunity that is before me of making a few remarks about the position of agriculture in Scotland generally, so far, of course, as; the limits of the Vote will permit me to do so. I should like, in passing, to thank the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) for the part that he has played in making it possible for us to continue this Debate to-day. I am sure I am voicing the sentiments of all connected with agriculture when I say that, although the hon. Member may be in opposition, on this occasion he has played a truly national part. Agriculture is one of the vital subjects and one which any Administration which claims to use the adjective "National" must tackle and grapple with speedily. The discussion has been an extremely interesting one, and all the points to which I wished to refer have already been made. I will merely confine myself to re-echoing what
has already been said from the local point of view as, if I may say so, the representative of the largest area under cultivation in Great Britain.
This is the first occasion when we have really discussed the position of agriculture in Scotland. Many references have been made on many occasions during the present Parliament to the parlous condition of agriculture throughout the land. Fortunately in the northern part of the country affairs are not so bad as they are in England, but that is no reason why we who represent Scottish agriculture should be content to lie back and remain in a negative position. The position there, although it is not so acute, largely owing to the mixed system of farming, is unhappily far too serious to permit of our pursuing a course which is not justified. It was very encouraging to hear the right hon. Gentleman, in opening this Debate this afternoon, speak in such a direct manner about the necessity of speedily tackling this difficult subject, and associating himself with all that was said about him by his colleague the Minister for Agriculture. It is certainly very encouraging, after we have so often heard in this House the old argument, "What is the use of doing anything for agriculture in a small island such as this. It is merely necessary to concentrate upon the basic industries and leave agriculture to work out its own salvation." That is the theory which has been held by an enormous majority of the people of this country for far too long. It is owing to the fact that that theory has dominated the mind of the nation that agriculture has been prevented from having its voice heard. We hope, that now that we have got a national Parliament, and that the mind of the nation is awakening to the necessity of doing something, that Parliament is really going to do its best by the most ancient of all industries.
I have heard it said that when industry flourishes agriculture will, as a natural sequence of events, flourish also. Even those who have the most cursory knowledge of matters pertaining to agriculture will, after a few minutes' reflection, give a direct negative to any such statement as that. When industry during the long Free Trade era of this country reached its highest pinnacle, agriculture was in its lowest depths, as low, proportion-
ately, as it finds itself to-day. It is extremely difficult, owing to the poverty of the industry, to frame a comprehensive policy to meet the requirements of all who are engaged in agriculture. That has been the difficulty in the past, and it is the difficulty to-day. One great step forward has, at all events, been made, and one of the greatest obstacles of the past was that three elements in agricultural life were at variance and cross-purposes as to what was best to be done. These three were the owner of the land, the occupier of the land, and the labourer who maintains himself on the land by the sweat of his brow. In the past they have generally been in conflict, but to-day you have the spectacle of those three different orders of agricultural society realising that their objective is a common one, and that there is nothing to be gained but everything to be lost in a clash of opinion such as has prevailed in the past. They must go forward in a solid body to demand that their common industry shall have justice meted out to it.
6.0 p.m.
We have had a good deal of discussion about cereal farming in Scotland. Cereal farming in Scotland has not bulked very largely in the minds of the agricultural population. I am not for one moment suggesting that we should try to hold the balance between the cereal producer and the animal producers in Scotland, as we are doing in England by the Wheat Quota, in that much-discussed Measure which is now an Act of Parliament. It has frequently been said that the Wheat Quota Bill was responsible for antagonising the agricultural interest in Scotland, and that it hardly touched them or benefited them. The Agricultural industry in Scotland welcomed the wheat quota because it was the first step to the thorough reorganisation of the industry. Wheat certainly is grown in Scotland, or it has been grown up to the present. I do not know what will happen if an intensified system is pursued. Wheat has only been grown in very small quantities, and the same is true of the other cereals which we have already been discussing. The other cereal product that bulks largely is, of course, oats, which are grown very largely in Scotland for home consumption, to be consumed, so to speak, on the premises. A certain amount of surplus is left over. I was speaking to a prominent Scottish agriculturist yesterday, and he said that it is in regard to
that surplus that they feel they are not getting fair play. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) spoke about the necessity of doing something to stop the coining into this country products from Russia, chiefly oats, which come in by the process which is commonly known as dumping. It is almost entirely in regard to oats that the dumping menace in Scotland is so great. The Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire (Lord Scone) made that point in connection with many other projects in his speech on Wednesday last. I would like, on behalf of the oat producers in Scotland, to say that they feel very keenly indeed that this matter of dumping is one that must be dealt with very drastically indeed. So much for cereal farming, which, as I have said, occupies such a small space in the minds and lives of Scottish agriculturists. There can be no doubt that it is the animal production side of the industry in Scotland, just as in England, which, if it is helped along, as we hope and believe it is going to be, will restore agriculture to its original position. In the sphere of animal products, two main items stand out as of paramount importance. Those are the branches connected with the dairying industry and that of meat production itself. What is the position of the dairy farmer in Scotland? I cannot help saying, in passing, that it is rather amusing to find that in the Twentieth Report of the Department of Agriculture, Section XI begins with a reference to an "Investigation of the profitableness of farming." As regards the dairy farmer, his position is certainly not one that would permit him to read with calmness a section with such a title. His position is insecure in the extreme. At this very moment, people are going about the country in Scotland explaining at meetings of dairy farmers the proposals of the Government with regard to the milk reorganisation scheme. I am sorry that those explanations have not been more joyfully received. There has been a good deal of heckling when those who are charged with this matter have stated their views, and questions have been invited. There is keen interest on the part of the farming public as to whether this scheme is really going to put them in a better position with regard to the marketing of their milk, and whether it is going to meet with greater success than did the
milk pool, which was tried not very long ago and which ended in dire failure.
It may be said that the milk pool failed because it failed to secure the wholehearted co-operation of the milk producers-of Scotland, and there may be a grain of truth in that suggestion, but every producer who is qualified to speak on the matter will tell you that the real reason why the milk pool failed was because of the uncontrolled foreign imports of milk, both in the condensed and, sometimes, in the liquid form, that were coming into this country. The answer, no doubt, will be that the 10 per cent, duty will meet that situation, but I very much doubt if it will, and those who are actively engaged in the farming industry are also wondering considerably whether that 10 per cent, duty will really meet the requirements of the case. They believe that some better organisation than that will be necessary if the marketing of milk and the question of dealing with surplus milk are to be handled in a way that is calculated to produce the results which we all desire to see. I have noticed that at many such meetings the question of cheese has been raised. That is a question which interests me very much from the agricultural point of view. At one meeting in particular, about which I was reading the other day, the point was directly made as to how the question of cheese could be dealt with so as to give our producers the chance that they must have if they are to go on producing, when we have cheese coming in, not only from outside the British Commonwealth of Nations, but from Canada and New Zealand as well, at a price with which our home producers cannot possibly hope to compete.
As regards the main pivot of the animal production side of agriculture, namely, meat itself, that is the crux of the whole situation, because it touches the unemployment problem at first hand. If you have a real livestock policy, if you set out to produce the greatest amount of meat that you can economically in this country, holding the balance, as we all wish to do, you will directly relieve the strain of unemployment, and you will see gradually dribbling back to the land some of those who have left it in recent years and gone into the towns, adding to the large numbers there who are in the ranks of the unemployed. A vigorous livestock policy will do this because it ensures in the rotation the place of the green crop,
which directly calls for increased labour in agriculture. But, just as we hope that some security is going to be offered in the nature of marketing, so we hope that some security is going to be offered in regard to the price that the producer is going to receive for his wares. I would suggest, and I think the farming community in Scotland as a whole would suggest, that what is required is the fixation, not necessarily of a maximum price, but a minimum price. A minimum price judiciously fixed would cause inconvenience to no one. The consumer would not suffer, because to-day the hiatus between the price that the wholesaler receives and the price that the retailer demands is so very large that the middleman would never have, shall I say, the effrontery to charge more than he is charging at the present time. I believe that a minimum price would meet the requirements of the situation. If security is not offered in this matter of price, there can be no doubt that the danger to the wages of those engaged in the agricultural industry will become a very live one indeed.
I spoke about this matter some two months ago, in the first Debate on the Agricultural Vote for England, and I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who followed me, said that it was no use talking in that way about the necessity of raising prices so as to make more secure the position of the agricultural labourer. He said that it could never be done in that way, and that such talk was mere cant. I am afraid that, with all the deference with which on many occasions I bow to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot accept the truth of such a statement as that. Although the agricultural industry to-day is at as low an ebb as it was 40 years ago, in the last decade of the last century, wages, in Scotland at all events, are still twice as high as they were at that date. It may be said that the value of money has changed, but that is no reason why we who represent Scottish agriculture and Scottish agricultural labourers should be content to leave matters to drift owing to our inaction in not urging upon the Government the necessity of doing something; it is no reason why we should allow the wages of Scottish agricultural labourers to be placed in continuing jeopardy. The majority of those of us
who are connected with Scottish agriculture, and with agriculture in Great Britain as a whole, believe that it is only by means of a strong livestock policy that the industry can be put once again in a fighting position.
In a few weeks' time that great Conference—I only refer to it incidentally—will take place at Ottawa, and it is the growing hope and belief of the farming community that our representatives at that Conference will come back to us with concrete proposals. We hope that a very firm hand will be taken in regard to British agriculture. We do not wish to see it made a shuttlecock for the purpose of obtaining the best bargain with regard to other industries. The fear lest agriculture should become a pawn in that way is a very live one in the hearts especially of Scottish agriculturists at the present time. We believe that the representatives of the Dominions will see our point of view, which is that, no matter how we may try to extend the idea of freer trade within the Empire—a most laudable sentiment and practical proposal—no scheme such as this will have the results that we all wish to see as the outcome of the Ottawa Conference which does not make for home preference first, allowing the Dominions only the second mortgage.
We in Scotland are not lovers of Protection for its own sake, as I am certain those who occupy the Liberal benches will agree. Neither are we Free Traders, nor have we been in the past Free Traders, just for Free Trade's sake. I think that, with all our faults and shortcomings, which no doubt are many, we can at all events claim to be fairly logical and hard-headed, and we realise sometimes that it is impossible any longer to kick against the pricks. Just as St. Paul, going down the road to Damascus, was suddenly dazzled by a blazing light that was let in upon him, so we to-day realise that it is impossible any longer to resist the force of present-day economic conditions. At the last General Election, the National Government appealed for a free hand, and the agriculturists of Scotland were by no means in the background in making it possible for that Government to be returned with the huge majority behind it that it had, in order that it might carry out a real national policy, not being tied or bound to any one line of action, but free to explore every
avenue whereby alleviation could be brought to the distressed industry of agriculture as a whole. We tried to do our bit, and we hope sincerely, and we believe, that the National Government will do its duty also by Scottish agriculture. I am certain that our confidence will have been justified before its tenure of office is over. I have endeavoured to put the case as best I could on behalf of the industry which I represent, and about which I feel so keenly, and I thank you very much, Sir Dennis, for having allowed me to do so.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that we should not make captious speeches making further demands on the Treasury. That is an easy line to take, but in these times, when the country is groaning under the burden of taxation, I do not think it is a sound line to follow at all I do not want any further grants, but there is money floating about and I could take the Secretary of State to parts of Scotland where money could be more usefully spent than it is being spent now. At Dingwall, for instance, money could be far better spent in giving the people the opportunity of earning their daily bread than in feeding them on the East wind of a clerical education. When one sees the right hon. Gentleman there and considers where he came from, one is reminded of the fly in the amber, and wonders how he got there. He represents a minority party in a policy to which the majority of the House is opposed. I do not suppose we can get a great deal of help from a Liberal, except that association with his colleagues may bring him to see the light, and I hope that in the course of time he may become a much more patriotic citizen. Scotland has been a kind of dumping-ground for people from England who were no use here. The right hon. Gentleman is, at all events, a Scotsman, and that is an enormous advantage. It is not like having an English Member put into that position.
The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) seemed to be surprised that, in spite of all the cuts that have been made, Government officials are in no way restricted. He forgot that, when you come to deal with the Government official class, you are
dealing with a priestly, saintly, sanctified class. I have no doubt that the Government officials from the Board of Agriculture are doing their duty as well as can be expected. The were established originally in 1912 and 1913 by the Liberal party, but I question very much if the many millions that have been expended on them could not have been much more usefully applied. I remember in 1922, in connection with their policy of settling people on the land, I found out that the expenses of the Board of Agriculture would have provided every man who had been settled on the land with a pension of 30s. a week for life and allowed him to buy a smallholding for himself. I am not surprised that the officials have not been cut down. We see the same thing in America, and we see here that, as soldiers and sailors grow fewer, the War Office and the Admiralty increase. I suppose the Board of Agriculture will increase until agriculture itself dies down altogether. That will be the end of it.
One of the reports on smallholdings said that the Board of Agriculture attributed the success of these men in small cultivation to the fact that their wives have been brought up on farms and knew something about it,.and that it was hopeless for men to succeed unless their partners assisted in the work. That is a very sound observation. That is how smallholders succeed. It used to be the practice, I am told, in Perthshire 60 or 70 years ago, for farmers not to have farm servants. They had smallholders surrounding them with two or three acres each. They worked on the same principle as the forestry people work to-day. They do not engage men in the forests to work for 365 days in the year less the 52 allowed for the Sabbath. They give them 150 days' work in the forest, and give them a smallholding and.say, "Earn your living on your own holding and grow your own food." It is open to the farmers to do that to-day without any interference from the Board of Agriculture. Why do they not give their men a certain amount of land and guarantee them only so many days' work and cease buying agricultural produce in the market—bacon, eggs and vegetables?
That is the real trouble with agriculture and horticulture. The produce cannot stand three profits. It cannot stand producers, middlemen and re-
tailers, with the expenses of each. The labourer ought to be in a position to produce the things he lives on and, with a wage for so many days' work in the year, that would be very much better than having a money wage all the year and having to buy at the shops. The real solution of the agricultural problem is to get an economic market. If you could manage by some sort of co-operation—I do not know that the Government could do it—to bring producer and consumer face to face the problem would be solved. With regard to the taxation of meat which has been suggested, in the old days we had enormous herds of cattle. I believe we could practically feed ourselves in this country if we cultivated our land intensely. I believe we could produce all our pig supplies, eggs and bacon, but I doubt very much if we could ever produce butcher meat, in the sense of oxen, as cheaply as can be done in the Argentine. I have had a good deal of information supplied to me, and it has shaken me to some extent. But, with regard to pig products, we ought to produce all our own, and that would itself mean an enormous amount of labour in cultivation of the land, and it would help in adjusting the balance of trade.
6.30 p.m.
We in Scotland, of course, have many grievances. The growing of barley is one of our greatest industries, but it is taxed to the extent of £300 to £350 per acre. That would never have been put on by a Scottish Parliament. That is a very great grievance and, until there is some modification of it, we cannot expect that the Scottish barley-grower will get a chance. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep that in view. I do not think he can do anything in the present state of the country's finances, but he might try of see if he cannot mitigate the taxation so that in time he will be able to do something to restore this Scottish industry to the prosperity to which it is entitled. The Scottish farmer is the best in the world. I was very proud, when I was in Rhodesia on the last two occasions, to discover that the greatest farmer in Africa was a comparatively young man who had been a successful farmer in Scotland. He was a Highlander from Argyll. He went there and took charge of one of the biggest farms in Africa, and brought a huge place to prosperity where everyone else had failed. We have to
begin with children at an early stage to make them love agriculture. It is the greatest and highest of occupations. More than any other, it brings home to the soul of man that he is going into partnership with the Almighty. If we can get that instilled into the bosoms of our children, we shall get our land cultivated, there will be no difficulty and there will be nothing but prosperity for our country.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: We must compliment the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) upon the very skilful way in which he, brought in the difficulties of the industry and so enabled the Chairman, evidently, to keep a blind eye on the subject-matter of the discussion.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It was quite in order.

Mr. MACLEAN: The way in which the hon. and learned Member brought them in was quite in order. If they had been introduced in the usual manner, they would have come under the ken of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland, would have had something to say on the matter. I intend to address the Committee on the question of smallholdings and call attention to the amounts by which some of the Votes have been reduced. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire spoke about the necessity of better marketing, and yet I did not find him taking exception to the Estimate in which the amount provided to assist in the marketing of Scottish agricultural produce has been reduced by £4,000. Both the hon. and learned Member and an hon. Member sitting behind him strongly criticised the Secretary of State for Scotland because of his party predilections, and not because of his position as Secretary of State for Scotland. He was criticised rather because he was a member of the Liberal party, and, according to the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire and his colleague behind him, evidently occupied the position of the cukoo in the nest.
The point which strikes me most in the Estimate is the amount which is being taken from Scottish agriculture. The amount by which the Estimate in regard to marketing is reduced, as compared
with last year, is £4,832, and, as far as drainage is concerned, the Estimate is reduced by £31,000 as compared with last year. There is a total net reduction in the whole of the Estimate of £95,666 as compared with the Estimate of last year. I submit that in these days, although the cry is for economy, that kind of economy is not justified when one compares the Scottish agricultural Estimate with the Estimate for English agriculture. The percentage reduction of the Scottish Estimate is considerably higher than the percentage reduction of the English Estimate. I am not surprised that so many matters have had to be completely held up because of the way in which the Scottish Office is evidently compelled to save at the expense of agriculture. The Agriculture (Scotland) Fund (including Grants-in-Aid) has been reduced by £49,000. The Estimate for the improvement of livestock is reduced by £2,000, and yet at one time Scottish livestock was included among the finest specimens of pedigree cattle and horses one could find anywhere in the world, so much so that large numbers of prize pedigree stock in Scotland were purchased by breeders from abroad and exported to the Argentine and used in that country in order to bring about a better breed of cattle and horses. Now we find the Secretary of State for Scotland coming before the Committee with an Estimate for the reduction of the amount to be expended upon the development and improvement of one of our finest products as far as exports go.
The reduction in regard to land drainage is approximately £31,000, and yet we find in the report of the Department of Agriculture a number of places mentioned which are still liable to flooding. In those places nothing, evidently, is being done or can be done to safeguard the inhabitants from the damage which arises from flooding. I will take one place which lies outside the city of Glasgow. For some years the Kelvin Valley has been subjected to considerable flooding. The late Member for West Stirlingshire used to raise the question periodically because of the constant flooding which took place when there was anything like an excessive rainfall in the area. As far as the Kelvin Valley is concerned, the report says:
In view, of the financial situation and the Committee's observations, further
action in regard to the promotion of this scheme was suspended.
That is the scheme to carry out work in the area to prevent a continuation of flooding. Flooding is to continue in that particular area. Considerable damage has been done, not merely to the households of people dwelling in the area, but to a very decent agricultural part of the country. Damage is to be permitted to be done there because of the financial straits of this country. I submit that no financial difficulty should be allowed to stand in the way of necessary repairs. If there were a house in this country which was not watertight, and the landlord would not make it watertight, all that would have to be done would be to report the matter to the local authority and have the matter put right at once. No protestations on the part of the owner of the property as to his being in financial difficulties would prevent the work from being carried out. I cannot, for the life of me, see why in this country valuable land upon which good food can be grown is to remain the subject of flooding for years to come, because we are told the country is in financial difficulties. You are putting those who are cultivating the land into greater financial difficulties by the refusal to drain the ground properly.
Take the Spey Valley. At Garmouth, a place which I know something about, and which is not far removed from Lossiemouth, the Prime Minister's birthplace, houses are flooded time after time. The railway company, which is one of the parties to the proposed scheme, is, I understand, prepared to go on with the scheme to prevent the flooding of that area. The landowner, I understand, takes a different point of view, and, in consequence, according to the report of the Department of Agriculture, all that is done, seeing that the scheme to prevent flooding cannot be proceeded with, is to tell the local authorities to build houses on a higher stretch of ground and remove the people there. A more stupid method of attacking the flood problem I have never read in any report. The country is in financial difficulties and cannot prevent flooding in a particular area, but the local authority are advised, with financial assistance from a Government in such difficult straits that they cannot prevent flooding, to institute a building scheme. It is almost too absurd to believe that such a contradictory situa-
tion could be put into a report of the Department of Agriculture and submitted to the House of Commons for acceptance.
Can the Secretary of State for Scotland say why greater activity is not being shown in placing applicants upon smallholdings? About 6,000 people have been put into smallholdings. There are 7,000 applications pending, and between 11,000 and 12,000 applications have been withdrawn. Can one wonder that so many people withdraw their applications when it has taken so many years for some people to get smallholdings? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that a few years ago I brought to the attention of the House the cases of two men who had made applications for smallholdings in 1912, who went through the War, came back as ex-service men in 1918, and yet in 1926 were still applying for smallholdings. Finally these men had to take possession of land, and in consequence they were put into prison as land raiders. Can one wonder that men become desperate and forcibly take possession of land after having had their applications in for 14 years, having fought in the War and having been brought up on the land with all the qualifications necessary for tilling the soil and making something out of smallholdings? Is there not some justification for people withdrawing their applications when they find the Scottish Office so slow in inquiring into their cases and in obtaining the land necessary when they have found people suitable for placing upon the land?
I am not blaming the present Secretary of State for Scotland. Probably I could blame him less than the Secretaries of State for Scotland who preceded him. He has been in office less than a year. He is standing here to answer for the sins of his predecessors, but I hope that he will not put himself into the position, when future Votes come up for discussion, of being put upon the cross in the way his predecessors have been because of his inactivity in regard to the same matter. I trust that when next the same Vote comes before the Committee, he will at least have some justification and satisfaction in submitting his report to the House and showing a very marked increase in the number of people who have been placed in smallholdings, and also a
very large improvement in agriculture throughout the whole of Scotland.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): We have had a very interesting Debate, to which helpful contributions have been made from every quarter of the Committee. I enjoy the position to-day of being the party attacked instead of finding myself amongst the attackers. I am in one sense of the word, getting a little of my own back. All the speeches, including the attacks— the rapier touches of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and the more cumbersome bludgeon wielded by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart)—have been stimulating. A great deal of useful information has been given and much light has been thrown upon the problems discussed. It has been suggested by several speakers—I think the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was the first to suggest it, and other hon. Members followed him on the same line—that when I introduced this Vote I made an optimistic speech. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said that it was a flowery speech. Hon. Members have overlooked a very important part of the speech, in which I said clearly that there never was a time when farmers were contending against so many and such adverse handicaps as to-day.
Far from wishing to be foolishly optimistic, I say that the situation is serious, but I also say that we may have grounds for confidence in the future, knowing the whole history of Scottish farming and the progressive spirit in which Scottish farmers are attacking their difficulties, and conscious, as the majority in this House are, that the Government are putting their backs into the work and doing their best for the farming community. There are certainly some grounds upon which we may base what I would call not an unreasonable or easy optimism, but a feeling that if we do pull together and if all the Measures of the Government can be brought to a successful issue, then indeed agriculture will come into its own in Scotland as in other parts of the country and that it will be not the least prosperous of our industries. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) took a
different view of my speech and said that it was an apology for economy. It was very far from being that.
On nearly every occasion that I have been present when the Scottish Estimates have been presented the Secretary of State has had more or less to take an apologetic view of economies, but for the first time that I have known in this House I felt bound to strike a different note. I said that, far from apologising for economy, having regard to the economic position of the country and the financial necessities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I had to justify the expenditure of every shilling in the Estimates. It was from that standpoint I expounded the Estimates. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll said that he knew of a way in which I could make economies. It would be improper for me to follow him into a discussion of the particular item to which he referred, but I can assure him that there is not a chance of £50,000 being saved in this year at Dingwall and there is no proposal at all to spend £50,000 on any such purpose this year. I hope, however, that we shall have an opportunity later on in the evening of dealing with that particular misrepresentation, not made deliberately by the hon. and learned Member but due to a misunderstanding.
References have been made to the difficulties of almost every branch of Scottish farming. Hon. Members will forgive me at this hour and with a large agenda still before us if I do not go into every argument that has been used, or if I do not deal with every branch of farming, but there was one matter which was mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) in his very interesting speech, and the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey), namely, cereal farming. I made it quite clear in my speech in introducing the Estimates that we definitely considered that a livestock policy is the important one for this country to pursue. We attach special importance to these branches of farming— livestock farming, dairying, and so forth—and I wish to make it quite clear to the Committee that that is the policy which we are pursuing. We do not in the least ignore the importance, indeed, we have proclaimed the importance of barley and oats. The Minister of Agri-
culture has announced that the question of dealing with barley either on the same lines as wheat or in some other way is being studied now. He has announced that on behalf of the whole Government, and that study, difficult and complicated as it is, is being energetically pursued. But do not let hon. Members think that there is any chance—even if they distrust me, as the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn very frankly does, and do not let the Scottish farmers think that there is any need for them to share in the hon. and gallant Member's fears—of Scottish interests being overlooked, or of barley being overlooked because it is a Scottish interest. It is in greater proportion an English interest.
There is more barley grown in Scotland than wheat. According to the last figures we had for 1930 there are 54,000 acres under wheat in Scotland and over 100,000 acres under barley. Wheat is far more important in England than in Scotland, and although barley is twice as important in Scotland as wheat, it is ten times as important for England as for Scotland, because there are 1,000,000 acres of barley in England as against 100,000 acres of barley in Scotland. Not only is it ten times as important to England |as it is to Scotland, but it is of greater relative importance in English economy than it is in Scottish economy. The easier way by far to deal with this particular problem would be to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, as the most direct way of restoring prosperity, if it were possible, having regard to larger aspects of policy, but I am afraid that it would be impossible for me to do that by administrative action.
The hon. Member for East Fife (Sir J. Duncan Millar) and one or two other hon. Members asked me to say something more clearly about the Government's agricultural objective.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Before the right hon. I Gentleman leaves the question of barley may I ask whether he has considered the possibility of staining?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, and what is more important it is being considered by people who have a really expert knowledge of the process. That particular question has passed the phase of being studied by Ministers. We are anxious that, if possible, all the difficulties which
attend that particular process should be overcome and the possibility of overcoming those difficulties is receiving the close study and attention of the experts. With regard to the Government's objective—

Mr. STUART: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman himself would prefer to support an additional duty on malt and barley?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Government's policy on this subject has been announced and it is a policy to which every Member of the Government is pledged. It was announced months ago by the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. STUART: I want to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland is in agreement with that policy.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Of course he is in agreement with that policy. I have just said that I am in full and complete agreement with the policy which has been announced by the Government on that question. What are the objectives to which I have referred? First of all, the question of barley is one of the objectives to which the Minister of Agriculture has referred. Then there is the necessity of producing in this country the bacon and pork which we consume. Particularly, there is the bacon problem. That matter is the subject of study by the Reorganisation Commission at the present time. When I referred to the appropriateness of these objectives to Scottish conditions I had in mind the fact that the pig industry is making, I will not say great progress, because that would be an exaggeration, for no branch of agriculture is doing that at the present time; but it is being increasingly adopted in Scotland in small holding schemes assisted by the Department of Agriculture. They are very interesting schemes, one of which I visited a few weeks ago near Edinburgh. This is one of the directions in which the Department is moving.
7.0 p.m.
A good deal of research has been done on questions which will greatly facilitate a forward move in the pig industry. That problem is being studied by a commission on which Scotland is represented by Sir William Haldane. In regard to the milk industry we have set up a Milk Reorganisation Commission. As regards marketing, we have our own milk scheme which is now going through the various
stages which are ordained by the Marketing Act. There is a Scottish liaison officer on the Milk Reorganisation Commission which is sitting in London, and therefore the closest possible contact is being preserved between the milk producing industry in Scotland and the work of the Reorganisation Commission in England. A great deal of work had been done in Scotland before the policy was announced, in regard to such matters as research and disease, and we are increasing that work now and working towards an objective which will be directly useful in the development of the Government's policy for the dairying industry. The hon. Members for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) and North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) referred to the question of beef. In regard to that we have been conducting research with the object of helping the producers. I have now requested the Scottish agricultural organisation society to draw up a marketing scheme on the lines for which the farmers asked in the resolution they passed at Inverness a few weeks ago. The question of grading is also receiving very careful examination.
I should have liked to have said a good deal more on these wider questions of policy, but I do not wish to miss answering the very many points that have been raised in the Debate, so I will pass on. Various criticisms were made by several speakers in regard to the land settlement proposals in these Estimates. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty declared that we ought not to economise in this direction, and, on the other hand, several hon. Members have declared that we have not economised enough. The right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty said that this was a very sad state of affairs, and that there was no money for the settlement of new holdings.

Mr. MACPHERSON: We strongly object to and resent the fact that millions of pounds are being spent without any cuts at all on the Zambesi and in Palestine, whereas a great cut has been made in the miserable pittance we get for agriculture in Scotland.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am quite prepared to take the fullest responsibility for everything which is in these Estimates,
and I do not in the least resent but, indeed, welcome helpful criticisms of our proposals: but I cannot be held responsible for the expenditure of other Departments. The hon. Member said it was a very sad state of affairs because there was no money for the settlement of new holders. I can assure him that that is a mistake, and I can only repeat what I said when we discussed this last week, that we were able to make economies this year without for the remaining part of the year retarding progress on adaptation work on properties already acquired, and I pointed out there could be no more false economy than to slow down that process of adaptation, for the more quickly properties once acquired could be passed through the machinery of the Department, the move economical the settlement would be.
If I may return for one moment to the subject of marketing, the hon. and learned Member for East Fife asked about the co-operation of the auctioneers in the marketing scheme. I have still good hopes of their co-operation. If we can get that co-operation, it will be very valuable and will smooth the progress of the scheme. I shall be very glad indeed if it can be assured. Of course the board will be a producers' board, but I certainly hope we shall get that co-operation.
To return to the question of land settlement, the hon. and learned Member for East Fife gave a very discouraging account of the settlement at Crail, which was echoed by several other speakers who referred to the difficulties in regard to the water supply and other points. I think this complaint and some of the other complaints made during the Debate relate to a period which is passed, a period when smallholdings were being formed under great pressure, at the highest level of prices, and by an inexperienced staff hastily recruited immediately after the War. I have said before that mistakes were made then, but we are overcoming them, and, in the particular case referred to, that of Crail, my recent reports are good. I am told that the provision of a satisfactory water supply did present very serious difficulties, but that it was met by the installation of a filtration plant which cost £900. I am told now that the holdings are being well cultivated, and that they have held one of the most successful shows in the country.

Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: I gave cases where the holdings were not yet wholly satisfactory. The scheme is working better, but there are certain holdings which require further consideration.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am glad the hon. Member agrees that the scheme is working more satisfactorily, and if the hon. and learned Member will give me particulars of the complaints that he is still receiving, I will certainly look into them. Several hon. Members have criticised me in regard to this economy on smallholdings but on this occasion, if I am criticised on the score of undue economy, my withers are un-wrung. We have to relate every Estimate to the general financial situation of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to balance the Budget, and that being the problem with which the Government are faced, it is apparent that every Department has to make its contribution, and even useful, valuable and productive expenditure has to be cut out in every direction. It is for that reason that we are not able to do more in land settlement now.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I was referring to the large number of arrears on smallholdings.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I agree that there are a very large number of arrears, and we want to get on with the job. In every part of the House there will be support for a forward land settlement policy in better times, but the limiting factor at present is the financial factor. There may be differences between us as to the policy of land settlement which can be overcome, but at the present time finance is the limiting factor. I was also asked about research by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), and by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) who referred to the limitations which wore necessary on grounds of economy. I share fully their views, and deplore the necessity for cutting expenditure in this particular direction. It can only be defended on general grounds of broad financial policy, and not on any particular ground in relation to agricultural policy. But I would like to make it clear that the economies have been almost entirely obtained by the postponement of buildings. It is not the case that we are checking the work that is now being done,
or undoing that work. What we are doing is advancing at a less rapid pace than has been done in the past. A big building programme, which was in contemplation last year, has been cut down. Expansions are not being made which were envisaged last year. To that extent, it is true to say we are slowing down the progress which had been anticipated last year, but the work of research is going on uninterruptedly and with unabated zeal: It is only expansion which is retarded.
The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen referred to the Macaulay Institute and made some criticism as to the amount of money which we are spending on that particular institute for research. Let me explain that the £4,000 is not new money. It is transferred from the advisory work already done in the agricultural colleges and out of the £4,381 only £276 is new money. Moreover it should be remembered that we owe it in a very large measure to the great generosity of Mr. Macaulay himself, who provided for its acquisition and equipment and upkeep, including the farm in Lewis, a sum of money which I cannot estimate at the moment, but which would run into five figures, say £20,000 to £25,000. Moreover) it is doing very valuable work outside that particular branch to which the hon. Member refers, such as the mineral analysis of soils and other research work to which I referred in introducing the Estimates. The hon. Member referred to economy in drainage. As regards hill drainage, we have been fortunate in Scotland in being able to continue a service which has been abandoned altogether in England and Wales, and the greater part of the economy has been in the matter of arterial drainage. At a time when ecoomy is so necessary, it was felt that it was impossible to justify so large an expenditure as £24,000 on the Kelvin scheme, to deal with only 2,580 acres. I am far from saying that the scheme is abandoned. There are many arguments which may be brought forward in favour of it, but at the present time we consider that it is not one which we should be justified in undertaking.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: With regard to the Kelvin scheme, it is not so much the acreage which is flooded as the damage that is done to other parts by the flooding of the area.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I dare say there is something in that point. I do not say that the scheme is a bad one, or that no Government will undertake it; but it is not a scheme which we should be justified in undertaking at the present time. As regards the Garmouth scheme, it is much cheaper to rebuild the houses than to spend money on these works. It would be many times more expensive to undertake this scheme than it would be to rebuild the houses.

Mr. MACLEAN: Were the two parties owning the land which constitutes the flooded area and causing the damage, willing to bear their fair share of the expenditure on works which are necessary to prevent flooding?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Thai depends on the definition of "their fair share." The fact remains that a large sum of the money required would have fallen on the State, and, as I say, it would be much cheaper to rebuild the houses. In regard to the question of agricultural credits, the position is that all matters of principle have now been settled between the Department of Agriculture, the Treasury and the four banks concerned, and formal documents setting up the company are now before the Treasury for final adjustment. I am assured that a short period should see the successful completion of this difficult business. There has been delay which I greatly regret and deplore, but I can assure the Committee that the Department of Agriculture has done everything in its power to accelerate the matter. We are fully alive to its importance, and I hope that the period of delay has now come to an end. The hon. Member for Aberdeen West raised the question of the staff. I gave the Committee figures on the last occasion to show that we were doing our utmost to reduce the staff. First of all that we had reduced the number, abolished a number of posts of about £4,000 a year, and that we were not filling other posts, although they appear in the Estimates.
The hon. Member has complained that we are not doing enough, and that in years past there had been a steady growth of the staff. There is a simple and important answer to that complaint, which I think hon. Members should take into account, and that is the amount of
work which the House of Commons, session after session, in recent years has been putting on the Department of Agriculture. I am not going into the question as to whether these measures were right or not, but I have here a long list of Acts of Parliament passed in recent years all of which have increased the duties thrown upon the Department of Agriculture. Take, for example, the year 1924–25, in which there was the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, for which regulations had to be framed, the payment of subsidies arranged, and a large amount of routine correspondence performed. There was the Milk and Dairies Act, the Agricultural Returns Act. In 1926–27 there was the Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, the Markets and Fairs Act, and in 1928–29 the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, and the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, all of which threw additional duties on the Department of Agriculture.
At the same time there was an expansion of business with which the Department is charged, such as the Scottish Horticultural Advisory Committee, the annual preparation and issue of the tables of the residual values of feeding stuffs and manures, and the issue and administration of new orders under the Destruction of Insects and Pests Act, administration on behalf of the Empire Marketing Board, and the administration of various works and schemes in other directions. At the same time there was an increase in the acreage of the estates belonging to the board. At the present time the total number of rents payable half-yearly and requiring to be collected is 3,676 and the total number of annuities which are collected half-yearly, in repayment on loans, is 4,322. That means that there are about 16,000 documents a year on that score alone. Some allowance, therefore, must be made in these circumstances for the automatic growth of the responsibilities of the Department when hon. Members are considering the increase in the staff. I can only repeat the assurance I have already given, that we shall continue to pursue economy in this direction and continue to cut down the staff wherever it is possible. This question is constantly under review with a view to further economies.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Secretary of State has referred to the Bill which I had the honour of introducing, the Heather Burning Bill, as one of the causes of the increase in staff. Might I suggest that if all branches of the Department were run as cheaply as the Heather Burning Act, £50 a year, it would be an excellent thing.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member must remember that I took a few years as they came, and, while it is obvious that the Heather Burning Act did not add substantially to the duties of the Department, it nevertheless is true that the long list of Bills which have been passed during recent years has added considerably to the work of the Department of Agriculture. I have answered as best I can most of the points which have been raised during the Debate, and I can only assure hon. Members that all the points will be carefully considered by the Department and by myself.
I have already said that it was unfair to describe my speech last week as being unduly optimistic. Of course it is true that every branch of farming, not only in this country, but in every country of the world is afflicted by great depression. Many interesting suggestions have been made for dealing with the problem which lies at the root of the agricultural difficulty and to restore equilibrium between costs and prices, but there is one great fundamental fact which will strike every one who has studied the agricultural situation, and that is that there are to-day in the world 25,000,000 people out of work, and if you allow one dependant to each of these you have 50,000,000 people unemployed, an aggregation greater than the whole population of these islands. That is what I meant when I said that the main battle for agriculture cannot be won on a purely agricultural front, but having said that I said, do not let us abandon ourselves to despair. There has been a little too much pessimism about agriculture. It has come to be regarded as a kind of poor relation to other industries. I feel convinced that agriculture in this country has a great future. Let us concentrate upon making the most of those features of the situation which are most favourable to its development. That, at any rate, I case assure the Committee will be the constant aim and determination
of His Majesty's Government, of which I have the honour to be a member and of the Department over which I have the honour to preside.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS III.

REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."—[NOTE.—£10 has been voted on account.]

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
7.30 p.m.
This is a matter which affects Scotland very much indeed. The amount of money which is devoted to the recording and the indexing of the historical records of Scotland is in no way comparable with the amount that is required, and no matter how efficient the staff might be there is not a sufficient number of them to codify the records, and consequently large numbers of very valuable documents which ought to be collected, indexed and made available for research work are lying neglected and becoming practically useless. The present Estimate is for only £200, whereas England is asking for and probably will obtain £2,300 for similar purposes. Although there is not sufficient money to provide for the proper collection and maintenance of Scottish records, there is plenty of money for English and Welsh purposes. Whereas only £455 is given to the National Library for Scotland, £15,300 is given to the Welsh National Library. If such a large sum of money can be voted to the National Library of Wales there is no reason why a proportionate amount should be withheld from Scotland.

Mr. J. WALLACE: I have pleasure in associating myself with the statement made by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). This question has to do with an old grievance about which I knew very little until quite recently. I happened to read an article in the "Scotsman" of 28th April last, which
gave a very full account of the whole position. But up to that time I had no idea of the disgraceful condition into which the Record Office in Edinburgh had got. It has been the subject of many representations in past years. At the last meeting of the Convention of Royal Burghs the representatives present thought it was not the slightest use to raise the question again with Scottish Members of Parliament, as they had been disappointed so frequently. The attitude in Scotland to-day, I understand, is that nothing will be done at all in order to right what is a very definite Scottish wrong. A deputation which we met last evening was composed of reputable Scottish gentlemen who knew exactly the importance of the subject about which they spoke. They surprised most of the Scottish Members who were present.
What is the position? We have, I am afraid to say how many hundreds of thousands of valuable historical records uncodified, uncalendared, and unclassed in any way whatever. They are lying about in the garrets and the cellars of the Register House, and many of them, I am told, are in a state of hopeless decay. I find it almost impossible to believe what I have been told about those records, but it is a fact that very strong representations have been made to the Scottish Office and to the Government before on the subject. I understand that in 1922 very strong representations were made to the Scottish Office; again in 1929; and once more in 1930, to the late Secretary for Scotland, Mr. William Adamson. We have a paltry sum of £200 allocated in these Estimates for these historical documents. It is impossible even to make a beginning with the work with a sum of that kind.
The complaint is twofold: First, that these documents are not looked after in any proper way and that they are being allowed to decay; and, secondly, that the staff is utterly inadequate to do the work. It is almost impossible to get recruits to enter this particular service in Scotland. That was the testimony we got last evening, with every possible evidence to support it. As a Scottish Member I ask, how is it that the Scottish Office permits this to go on? The whole history of the Records Office is one of parsimonious neglect so far as the Treasury is concerned. But we have a Secretary of State for Scotland. I remember that when I
was last in the House I took a small part in bringing to the notice of the House the unfairness of our having only a Secretary for Scotland instead of a Secretary of State, and I was very glad when the higher status was granted later. The Secretary of State occupies a very important position in the Cabinet, and the country and I cannot understand why he permits neglect of this sort to go on. As others have said, we cannot blame him personally, because this is a record of sin and neglect which has characterised many Secretaries and Secretaries of State up to now. But I think we must now expect our Secretary of State to do something. He has the fighting qualities. There are occasions when he can unsheath a shining sword in championing Free Trade, and I do not see why in the interest of Scotland that sword should not be drawn again metaphorically.
But I think my right hon. and gallant Friend is afraid of the Treasury. Perhaps it might not be altogether inappropriate for him as a Highlander to remember that there have been occasions when a Scotsman thought it was the right thing to "lay the proud usurper low." In his attitude towards the Treasury something of that old Scottish spirit will have to animate him if we are to have these records properly kept. We have heard a good deal from my right hon. Friend about economy, and we have all agreed with him on the broad question of economy, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said, there can be false economy, and I suggest that for these extremely valuable records, the most important records in the world, so far as Scotland is concerned, to be left in the present state of disgraceful neglect, is false economy. All we want is a perfectly reasonable thing. We say that the Scottish Record Office should at once be brought up to a relative status, so far as staff and equipment are concerned, to the London Record Office. Surely that is not stating our case too highly. I commend this subject to the early attention of the Secretary of State.

Mr. BUCHAN: I would like to associate myself with the two hon. Members who have spoken on this question of the Scottish records, a matter which has long exercised most seriously the minds of those who are interested in Scottish
history. The Scottish History Society, of which I have the honour to be President, has for some years made an annual protest, and the case for Scotland on this question has been argued most ably and energetically by the Convention of Royal Burghs, which is the best we have at present in Scotland in the way of a national council. The facts are perfectly plain. On this question in the last half century the interests of Scotland have been shamefully neglected. Our records are in a deplorable condition, un-catalogued, unindexed, in no way properly accessible to the public, and there is a real danger that unless we take care many of them will be destroyed altogether. That is not the blame of the officials. The Record Office during the last century has been in charge of very able public servants and very eminent scholars, but they are hopelessly understaffed, and there is nothing like enough money even for the mere purpose of physical preservation, let alone reorganisation of the Department so as to make it properly accessible to the public.
I need not remind the Committee that in recent years there has been a very remarkable revival of interest in historical study in Scotland. We Scots are all historically minded. The past is a very real thing to us. We have history in our bones. We have a very admirable recent record in Scottish historical scholarship, and recently we have seen two professorial chairs successfully founded in Scottish history. But there is very little encouragement for a Scottish historical student to pursue his researches in Scotland. It is a melancholy business to compare London with Edinburgh. At the Record Office in Chancery Lane everything is in beautiful order and the work of research is easy and simple. In Edinburgh a student finds himself wading among masses of irrelevant and dusty materials, with very small chance of discovering what he wants. Again, I say that that is not the blame of the officials. They are exceedingly competent as far as it is possible to be competent in their miserable jobs. The Scottish Record Office at present can only be described in the words of the popular hymn:
Change and decay in all around I see.
Yet these are wonderful records. They are not only of unparalleled value to the student of the history of our country but they are also of great legal interest
There is every likelihood that in the near future they will be very largely supplemented, as great estates are broken up and as the muniment rooms of great country houses are emptied. The natural place for such papers is the Record Office, but at present the Record Office cannot receive them or deal properly with them. There is a real danger that unless we take great care we shall lose some of the most valuable material of the country's history for ever.
I know that it is very difficult at this moment to ask for more money, but I understand that the amount required is very small. A matter of £1,000 or £2,000 is required in order to prevent these valuable documents falling into physcial decay. That is not a large sum, and I understand that the Register of Sasines makes a considerable profit. Is there no possibility of some reallocation by which some of the profit which is now taken by the Treasury from that department should go to the service of the Public Record Office? I appeal seriously to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I ask him to consider that in this matter Scotland is being treated, and has long been treated, with gross unfairness as compared with England or with Wales. We cannot face the prospect of our descendants arising and examining our work and finding that we, for a miserable ha'porth of tar, have spoiled an invaluable ship. I appeal to my right hon. Friend both on the ground of the unfair treatment of his own country in this matter and in the general interests of historical scholarship to deal with this grievance before it has passed all hope of redress.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I briefly reinforce the arguments which have been advanced by my two hon. Friends who have preceded me? I am like the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), a member of the Scottish History Society, and I had the honour of presiding at a meeting of Scottish members last night, when we had before us a very important deputation from the Convention of Royal Scottish Burghs. I think I can speak for everybody who was there when I say that we were deeply impressed by their statements. Some of the facts have already been placed before the Committee, but I was astonished to find that, in the twentieth century, a
country with a great past should have to confess that the Government are treating it in such a niggardly fashion and with such callous indifference in this respect. My colleagues and I were told that thousands of bags and boxes of documents which were placed in the Register House in 1789, the year of the French Revolution, have not been dusted since. If that be true, if documents of great historical value, some of them dating from centuries before, are lying there unsorted and undusted, it is a shame and a disgrace, and we, as the representatives of the people of Scotland, should not tolerate such a condition of affairs for a single moment.
We have heard a great deal about economy, but we are not asking for much. All we want, I believe, is something like £1,200 in order to have six Second Division clerks, who will begin the work of sorting these documents. These documents have not been treated by anybody during all these years and it is necessary, first, that they should be sorted. Nobody can say a word against the present officials. They are competent, sympathetic and able but it is beyond human powers to tackle the work which ought to be tackled, in historical research of this kind, in a house which contains so many documents. I understand that the Treasury in a normal year makes a profit of £10,000 on the Register House. If it be true that that sum is pocketed by the British Treasury, it is a great disgrace that we should allow these documents to become useless and valueless for the sake of £1,200 a year.
The British Record Office in Chancery Lane gets £67,000 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities who has, on occasion, added so much to our enjoyment as the result of his researches there, has pointed out that in the British Record Office research is a delight. Why should it not be the same to him in his own native country? We are as proud of our historical documents as any Englishman is proud of English historical records, and we are making this demand to the Treasury as a united nation. There is not a man or a woman in Scotland who is not sincerely anxious that this matter, after such a long delay, should be put right at once. Scottish feeling is running high and is bound to ran higher if callous indifference of this kind to national aspirations and national hopes
should continue to be shown by the British Parliament and it is on behalf of the whole of Scotland that we ask my right hon. Friend to take it upon himself to approach the Treasury and remedy an age-long disgrace and grievance.

Sir PATRICK FORD: There is a certain difficulty in dealing with this subject because economy is usual in Scotland and we are economical in our departments. We have this one department of registers and records and it fulfils functions which are fulfilled by two separate departments in England. Therefore if we want to bring a charge of unfair treatment against the Treasury, it is difficult to disentangle what goes to the Re-cord Office and what goes to the ordinary Register Office. It is hardly necessary to explain to the Committee the functions of these two offices. Roughly speaking the function of the Register Office is to see that records with regard to titles and deeds and so forth are properly prepared. Once they have been lodged, it is the function of the Record Office to see that they are properly kept and are accessible. I maintain that it is very difficult to fulfil even the first function owing to the conditions of penury under which we live in Scotland to-day as a result of the Treasury treatment of our country. Secondly, it is almost impossible to get any proper access to these valuable documents.
It would take far too long to go into the history of the documents. About 1590 or thereabouts, they were more or less complete but owing to a very sad train of historical and other events, some were taken to England; some which were being returned by Cromwell were lost in the wreck of the ship which was conveying them, while a great many were left in private country houses. There is actually a Bull which was issued by Pius IV some time about 1560 upon which I believe the titles to the properties in almost half a county of Scotland depend and owing to neglect on the part of the whole Government, and not of the Treasury only, of these things in Scotland, it was discovered only three weeks ago in a secondhand bookshop or auction room. That example reinforces the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) that we ought to set up with Treasury support, some general body in Scotland, to see that
these records are properly kept. As a matter of fact these records are not only of historical interest but have a practical interest as well and though I feel that it is difficult to make an appeal of this kind in these days when we must be strict in our economy, yet it always seems to me that the Treasury rather takes the Biblical attitude:
Moab is my washpot, over Edom will I cast out my shoe.
If we substitute Scotland, that has been the attitude of the British and predominatingly English Treasury on many Scottish questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is getting an opportunity of working with the National Government to secure these things for Scotland and we will applaud him if he does his duty, but we can never forgive him if he does not satisfy Scotland that he is doing his very best not to get up a special caste for the Treasury, but to get up Scotland's case and to bring the Treasury face to face with it. I maintain that we are not getting our proper grant for Scotland in proportion to what goes from the Treasury to England, and in proportion to the taxation which we pay to the common purse. Over and above that consideration there are 500 years of callous neglect and worse, to be made good with regard to the Record Office.
8.0 p.m.
With the indulgence of the Committee I would like to deal with the practical aspect of the question as it concerns the clerks in the Register of Sasines—those second-class clerks of whom we have heard, off and on, for the last two and a-half years, to the great annoyance, I think, of the powers that be, but to the even greater annoyance of those who have had to make a plea for them. It is all very well to become sentimental about the great past of a great nation—though there are practical issues involved as well—but we have also to ask, what are we doing for our sons to-day? What are we doing for the clerks who are entrusted with the preparation and revision of these documents and with seeing that those documents, upon which land tenure in Scotland depends, are kept in proper order. Their treatment is not within 20 per cent, of that received by their "opposite numbers" in England. In that office we have people who are responsible for the preparation and revision of those documents and for
seeing that they are properly filed and tabulated, and we are told that they are not worth any more than the clerical service in the corresponding English offices. It may interest the Committee to know that the corresponding nearest grade is what were called Second Division and are now called Lower Executive clerks in the Estate Duty Office in England. These people are recruited at the age of 18 to 20. Our clerks of the same grade in Scotland are recruited at the age of from 20 to 25. There is a difference there, and yet these boys begin in England at the rate of £100, rising by the not very princely increase of £15 a year to a maximum of £500. A maximum of £400 is grudged to ours, and they do not begin at the same scale either. There was a Reorganisation Report in 1920, and they lost the status that they had in correspondence with their English opposite numbers up to that time. They put in a claim on the 7th January, 1921, but it was two years and more after that before the Arbitration Board to which they sent their claim got from the Scottish Office its counter-statement, not a statement, as one might have expected, supporting the Scottish clerks, but a statement supporting the Treasury attiude. There was the counter-statement put in two years after the Geddes axe had fallen, after the other civil servants whose livelihood was concerned had got more or less what they wanted, and these poor Scottish clerks came in and were told, "Oh no, we do not consider that you are of any more use or any more value than the lowest clerical servants in England."
You cannot have it both ways, because you insist, before you take people as second class clerks in the Register House in Scotland, that you do not recruit them except between 20 and 25, as against between 18 and 20 in England, and you insist that they not only must have passed higher standards in second grade school examinations, but that they must have had practical knowledge of conveyancing and all its intricacies in Scotland, and under our feudal system there are far more differences in writs and in conveyancing and all those things which are a puzzle to the layman, and far more special knowledge required than in England. They have to have all that, and
also, and very rightly, they have to have had practical office experience. When my right hon. and gallant Friend and I had a discussion on this subject, he was most courteous and went into the matter, but he suggested that perhaps that service in an office might not really be very serious. On my own suggestion, he got a tabulated return of what service these people had done, and it was nothing illusory at all. They actually had done service that rendered them better practical men in dealing with practical points and confirming their theoretical legal training with practical legal experience.
Further, if you say that they have no more value than these lowest grade clerks in England, why is it that you insist upon their having these qualifications? Why is it that the general feeling in Scotland is that the requirements of the work they are put on to do are such that they deserve better emoluments, but get less? As a practical proof of that, in 1924 an examination was held, when there were 11 vacancies, and only four candidates were fools enough to turn up. One of them failed, and out of the three who passed one, on reconsideration, was less of a fool, said the terms were not good enough, and withdrew. Remember too that your higher grade clerks are recruited from that second grade, and you have therefore absolutely dying out the recruits and the material for dealing with things that require the greatest special knowledge; and in a few years the chaos of the deeds and writs on which we depend for our proper tenure of landed property in Scotland will be almost as great as the chaos that has overtaken these old records after 500 years of neglect.
I maintain that even if it would cost more, and even in these times of economy, it would be a false economy not to do this, but that is not the case, because, as a matter of fact, as I understand, that branch at any rate of the Register and Record Office pays its own way. It made a profit, and I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that, as far as our information goes, the Treasury very calmly took that profit and allocated it to other purposes, no doubt in the interests of the State, but not in the interests of Scotland, as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the interests of that Office. After certain changes
took place, there were Acts passed in 1924 and 1925—a Conveyancing (Scotland) Act and an Endowment of Church. Property Act for Scotland—and they not only entailed more labour on these clerks, but in the conveyancing part of the Office they reduced the sum total of the fees paid.
For transactions up to £200 there is a charge of 5s. made by that Office for seeing that things are in proper order and form, and it goes up to £6 for transactions valuing £10,000 and upwards. We maintain that there might, at any rate, be some suggestion made in the direction of dealing with these fees, and I would suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that he should stand up to the Treasury and say, "If you will not give us money, at any rate, let us make our own rules by which we can spend it." He should stand up to them like the Scotsman he is, and the hero he would become in the minds of all Scotsmen, if he had the courage to do it. I am sure he has plenty of courage. There is a kind of courage that is only rash, but there is another kind of courage that comes from thought, and I am sure that that is the kind that my right hon. and gallant Friend would display to the greatest advantage. If he would do that, we could again make that Office practically self-supporting and meet the immediate needs of these depressed classes.
We talk about the depressed classes in India, but think of these poor fellows who spent their money on their education, in working in an office for very small amounts, because it was leading up to what they were going to get when they got into the magnificent Civil Service. Just think what it means to them. There they are; they have been axed, and cut down, and they have suffered all the economy cuts, and they see their friends in England who do not have the same qualifications getting much better paid—

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: My hon. Friend may be a great authority on Scottish matters, but I suggest that if he wants an ideal Civil Service, he should come to England.

Sir P. FORD: As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend who interrupts does not know what he is talking about.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Again I say the English Civil Service is superior to the Scottish, section by section.

Sir P. FORD: I was saying that the opposite number, the specialist class in England, is paid infinitely more. I am not at all imputing any inefficiency to English people—far be it from me to do that, because they have been able to do a very good deal with Scotland—but I am merely saying that here are these people, who entered this service under certain conditions held out to them; they have been reduced all round, and they see their friends in England on similar jobs being infinitely better treated; and it does not seem to me to be fair.
There is one saving that is being effected, because there are a number of special clerks who, about 10 years or less ago, cost about £20,000 a year. There has been no recruitment for them in this Office, and they have been dying out, so that with the money already saved annually on that, if the Treasury did not interfere and if my right hon. and gallant Friend would insist on his rights as a Minister in Scotland, and not make special cases for the Treasury, but special cases for Scotland, he could get more than the money that is needed to meet the claims of these people. I speak feelingly about it, because I know about it. Very few of these people vote in my constituency, so let it not be thought that I am doing this as a vote-catcher. I am doing it because I want to see justice done to a very able, well-educated, conscientious body of men in Scotland, with wives and children dependent on them. I know that we do not live by bread alone. I know that we live by the spirit of our nation and our belief in it, but these men and their wives and children are practically starving, and I demand from the Secretary of State for Scotland less of this sickly hue of hesitation, a little more of the real Scottish spirit, and a little more standing up to the Treasury and getting justice for Scotland.

Mr. JAMIES JOHNSTON: Two points are raised on this Vote. First of all, there is the question of the Record Office, which is sadly under-staffed from the point of view of the carrying on of its work of preserving, cataloguing, indexing, and making available to the public and to students the documents which come within its care. Judged by
that absolute standard of the adequate performance of its work, it is understaffed, and I maintain, and the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) has very strongly supported the view, that upon a comparison with similar departments in England we are less well served in this connection. There has been a long agitation about this matter, and various promises, or at all events half-promises, of additional staff have from time to time been made by various Secretaries of State when they have been far removed from the Treasury on visits to Scotland, but nothing, unfortunately, has yet materialised.
I am told that the under-staffing is such that while the Record Office is open to receive gifts, it refuses to receive documents on deposit, on loan from those to whom they belong, if the person who proposes to lend them attaches the condition that they must be made available to the public. I am told also that in all questions of that sort the head of the Department is able to exercise no discretion at all, but has to refer every important matter to London, before he can give a reply. That is to say, he cannot decide for himself whether he has to buy a box of pen nibs or engage an office boy. It has all to come to London, where it will come before people who spend their working lives in Whitehall under the shadow of the Treasury and who do all their work practically with a Treasury official looking over their shoulder. It is that government of Scotland from London in matters of this sort which creates a great deal of feeling. This is not an Imperial question in any way; it is not a question of policy in any way; it is a purely Scottish matter, and there ought to be a competent authority in Scotland, whether an individual or a body, with sufficient authority to administer questions which arise in regard to the control of the records without continual reference to the Scottish Office in London. Far better would it be to get as much money as can be got for the purpose and give it to a competent body to spend without tying it down too much, than have every item of expenditure scrutinised in Dover House.
There is, in connection with the Record Office, an allied question about the sheriff court records, which at present are kept in the different counties and have never been collected into one centre. I believe that at present they rest altogether in 56 different depositories in various parts of Scotland. The places where they are kept are in many cases unsuitable, and in charge of people who in many instances cannot read them. They are, to some extent, I am afraid, being lost and damaged and destroyed, and are certainly not kept so as to be of the least use to any member of the public or student who wishes to consult them.
Since in accordance with the usual desire of the Scottish Office to get everything into its own direct control the office of Depute Clerk Register was abolished to comply with a shameful bargain with the Treasury, there has been no supervision or control of the Sheriff Court records to any purpose at all. There is no one in Scotland responsible for seeing how they are kept, or how they are indexed, or seeing what is done to make them of use to those who wish to consult them. In this connection a departmental committee was appointed by one of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessors in 1925 to report upon various questions connected with the custody and preservation of sheriff court records. It was an exceptionally strong committee, and its report is undoubtedly instructive. The committee reported first upon a reference as to whether further provision or regulations should be made for the custody, preservation and arrangement of the record in the hands of sheriff clerks; and they recommended:
That powers be sought and obtained for the constitution of a Record Authority, who shall have jurisdiction over the whole Public Records of Scotland, inclusive of the Sheriff Court records, and shall be furnished with sufficient powers to regulate the formation, transmission and preservation of these records.
Again, they recommended:
That provision be made for an increase of staff at the Record Office by the addition of, inter alia, two established clerks for the exclusive purpose of examining and arranging the records brought in from the Sheriff Courts; and that in addition to the present grant a sum of not less than £400 be furnished yearly for the adequate preparation of indexes and calendars.
The committee recommended the transportation of the Sheriff Court records from the 56 repositories where they are
now to the Record Office at Edinburgh. Upon other matters referred to it, this powerful committee found, for instance:
That in most instances the necessary accommodation is not available locally for the proper protection and handling of the Sheriff Court records, especially those of earlier date. … That the state of preservation of a great proportion of the older records is unsatisfactory. … That large sections of the Sheriff Court records are difficult of access. … That the present custodians are almost without exception unable to read the older records. … That the Sheriff Court records are of very great historical value,
And so on. So in regard to the Sheriff Court records, the committee recommended:
That the Sheriff Court Registers of Deeds and Decreets, with relative warrants … and all other Sheriff Court Registers … which are of earlier date than 1876, should be transmitted to His Majesty's Records Office at Edinburgh for safe custody and preservation, as and when required by a properly constituted Record Authority, there to be made available to students as other public records are.
The committee recommended similarly in regard to other records at present kept in the different counties. Lastly, the committee recommended:
That provision be made whereby the Record Authority, on the advice of experts, and with the consent of the Lord President of the Court of Session, may regulate the disposal, by destruction or otherwise, of such Sheriff Court records as are not of sufficient value to justify their preservation in the Record Office.
There is no need to say anything more. The report was made in 1926, and the outstanding recommendations are that the sheriff court records should be sent to the Record Office and that an authority should be set up to look after the public records of Scotland. All that we have to do is to ask why nothing has been done. We can do that without the least hesitation, as we are obviously not asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman why he has done nothing because he has not had a very long time to consider it. We are, however, entitled to know what are the views of his Department of the report which was made so long ago as 1926.
There is the other question with which my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) has dealt with regard to the clerks in the Register of Sasines Department. It is not a very easy subject to discuss as there are so many details connected with it, and I do
not propose to enter into them. I can only say that we have in these clerks a class of men who have a good education of a secondary school character, have passed an examination in the law of real property, and have had practical experience in a law office. In other words, they were definitely engaged as people with substantial legal and general educational qualifications. I do not think that it is right now for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, after these qualifications have been laid down, to accept the Treasury view that the duties to be performed are, on the whole, no more than what might be described as of a clerical nature. You cannot engage people as lawyers and then turn round and tell them that they are only doing clerks' work and should only get clerks' pay. It is from those very people that the higher staff in the same Department are exclusively recruited, apart from one or two at the very top. I gather that no question is raised as to the legal qualifications of the first-class clerks in that Department.
The broad facts about these clerks are simply these: In 1919 they had the same salaries scale as those who were then called the Second Division class; they had the same salaries scale then as the clerks in the Customs and Excise Department. To-day they are £100 below the Second Division clerks, and £150 below the Customs and Excise class, because in 1920, when the general Civil Service was reorganised, this special class was missed out. They made an immediate claim for consideration and a delay of some years took place. For the last two or three years, whenever this question has been raised, the reply has been that any consideration of these claims and of what is to be done with this class must await the decision as to whether anything is to be done in the reorganisation of the Register of Sasines Department on the lines recommended by the committee presided over by Lord Fleming, which reported in 1928. That report has been under consideration for nearly three years, and no decision has yet been announced.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in reply to questions recently, said that he was taking the opinion of legal bodies and hoped to deal with the matter shortly. Since then he has replied that these inquiries disclosed divergencies of
opinion. All I can say is that it is not the business of a Government to wait until all sides are agreed before they take action. On a matter of this sort the Government, if there is not agreement, must make up its mind on policy, and decide one way or the other whether they are going to reorganise the Department on these lines or not. We do appreciate the difficulties in regard to both these matters. We realise that in the end we are inevitably up against the Treasury. I think, however, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will lend a sympathetic ear to representations from the Scottish Office. Our criticism, if we have one to make at all—and I hope I am unjustified in making it—is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department, instead of being, as I would like to see them, the spearhead of the Scottish attack on the Treasury, are rather playing the role of the Treasury's first line of defence against any demands from Scotland. I should be very happy to feel that that is a wrong view, and that where we have, as we think, a legitimate demand for fair treatment for Scotland, we shall have a strong and helpful ally and advocate in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. GUY: I think the Committee must be in general agreement that a very strong case has been made out why my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland should take a firm line with the Treasury. It is clearly a case of injustice to Scotland. I have no doubt the Secretary of State will say that he strongly sympathises with the case, and say also that on account of the necessity for economy and of balancing the Budget it will be impossible for him to get this additional money. I wish to put forward a suggestion which may influence his judgment in the matter. It is a truism to say that economy is wise spending, but in the particular case of the Register House there is a real danger that if additional money is not spent now the Scottish Office will be involved in considerably increased expenditure within the next two years, because it has been made sufficiently clear that the Record Office has fallen into a disgraceful condition.
It has also been made abundantly clear by my hon. Friends the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) and the hon.
Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) that the second class clerks as a body are below strength. They have not been recruited to any material degree since the War. There were only two additional candidates to fill up the vacancies in. 1924, and there has not been a single new candidate since 1924. That means that the existing second class clerks are becoming more and more senior, and that in numbers they are now below strength. There are only 36 left out of a total of 51. No fresh blood is being introduced; no new members are being trained in the duties of the department. Then we are approaching a decision upon the Fleming report, which, as my right hon. and gallant Friend admitted in answer to a question of mine the other day, will involve additional duties for the second class clerks. If that reorganisation has to be carried out within the next year or two it cannot be done properly by the existing staff, and that will involve a raising of salaries to attract new recruits in order to strengthen the staff considerably. It would be much wiser to increase the staff gradually, and to raise the emoluments, in common justice, to raise the maximum of the second class clerks and to put them upon the same level as their equivalent class in the Civil Service. If this be done it will only be a reasonable act of justice to Scotland, and, in addition, it will ensure the efficiency of a vitally necessary Department in Scotland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be doing a good service and a popular service to Scotland if he tackles the Treasury in a right fighting spirit.

8.30 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Let me say at once that the Government very much welcome the Debate, the opportunity for which has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), and the helpful speeches which have been made in all quarters of the Committee on the very important question of the custody of the Scottish national records. The position there is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Boxes of valuable documents, irreplaceable records, are lying in the Register House unavailable to research students, uncatalogued, unindexed and not even examined, and the great majority of the records have been lying in those bags and boxes ever since the Register House was built at the end of the 18th century. None of us can view
that situation with complacency, and it was a thoroughly good thing to have this Debate to ventilate the subject. It is right that we Scottish Members of Parliament should be vigilant in the protection of our national records, I am at least glad to be able to confirm the tribute paid by hon. Friends of mint; to the work which is being done in the Record Office and the unsparing efforts being made by the staff there to make the most of the available resources. But if we are to do better we shall need money. These records have been lying there more than 100 years, and I doubt if during those 100 years there was ever a worse moment at which to come forward and make out a case for getting additional money for this purpose from the Treasury.
If we are to make our case effective we must use arguments that we can sustain in discussion with the Treasury, and there are three arguments used by hon. Members to-night which could not be sustained. I have made a note of two small ones first, and I will come to the other one later. In his interesting speech the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) said that loans were being refused now by the Record Office if it was made a condition that what was loaned was to be made available for the public. I am informed that that is not the case. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Colonel Buchan) said there was a profit on the Sasines Office of £10,000 a year, and I think that was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) but, in fact, there is a loss of £4,,000. The third and most important argument used upon which we cannot rely is the argument that Scotland is being treated worse than England.
The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) said, and said truly, that it is very difficult to disentangle the costs of the Record Office from those of the other sections of Register House. The vote for the Register House covers three main sections, with the addition of a very small chancery section. There is the deeds section, where deeds other than those concerned with the conveyancing of land are copied, registered and passed on to the Record Office. Then there is the Sasines Office into which the deeds concerned with the conveyancing of land are taken and copied. The origi-
nals are returned in this case, although not in the cases of deeds other than conveyancing deeds. The writs are returned to the owners of the land and the copies are passed on to the Record Office and go into the Record book. In addition, in the Sasines Office they keep what is known as the search sheet, which is a subject-precis of the record book. Then the third section is the Record Office proper, where the records,, and in particular the records of the conveyancing of land, are received, and where also the minute books are kept. The minutes give a chronological precis, according to the time at which transactions take place? in different properties all over the country.
In the Register House there are a number of services which are common to all three of these sections, and therefore I am very far from saying that it is an easy matter to arrive at the exact amount of the charge which could properly be said to belong, strictly, to the Record Office at Edinburgh, and at the amount of money spent on the records in Scotland which would be strictly comparable to the amount of money spent on the Record Office in England. But I have had these figures very closely gone into, and nobody, I need hardly tell you, would be more pleased than I if the result were to provide us with a strong argument to be used in putting this thing right. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace) mentioned the figure of £200 as being the amount of money which was spent upon the Record Office. Of course, that is very far from being the case.

Mr. WALLACE: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I mentioned specially that the £200 was for the publication of historical documents.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. The £200 is only a payment, to the editors for the work of preparing the record publications for the Press. It is confined solely to that one purpose. The other chief figures are: Staff salaries and pensions, £6,300; printing of publications, £1,800; accommodation, rates, incidentals, stationery, etc., £3,450; and that is the lowest estimate that I have been able to get. That makes a total of £11,550 as compared with £65,000 as the cost of the Public Record Office in London.

Mr. WALLACE: The comparable figure with the £200 in Scotland is the figure of £2,300 spent in England.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Ah, yes. But what we are discussing is the care of the records, and not whether a sufficient proportion of them are being edited for the press. That is not what we are discussing to-day, but it is that to which my hon. Friend's figure relates. We are discussing the whole of the money involved in the care, preservation, indexing, cataloguing and making available of the records for the purposes of research, including the publication work. The actual figure in the case of England is £65,000, and, in the case of Scotland, the lowest figure we have been able to get it down to is £11,550. I am making further inquiries into that.

Mr. GUY: May I ask whether the figure for England is not £37,000 for 1932?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I thought I had the actual figure. I find that I have not it actually under my hand. I will make inquiries and give the figure to my hon. Friend in a minute. I see now that my recollection is perfectly right. The actual comparable figure is £65,849. I said that this £11,550 was on a comparable basis with £65,849, and it is as near comparable as we can make it in this Very complicated calculation. There are two additional factors which the Committee should bear in mind, each of which tells a different way. On the one hand, there is the fact that the public Record Office in London has nothing comparable to the Sasines Register in Edinburgh, and that is of course because the custody of the register rests with the Record Office in Edinburgh. In fact, it is in that office that the bulk of the searches actually take place. On the other hand, the activities of the London Record Office cover a much wider field of historical research: it is a United Kingdom Office, and Scotland has a direct interest in a good deal of its work.
It is apparent from these figures that we are not getting unfair financial treatment as compared with England at the present time. We are getting more than our due proportion for these services, and we must put our case on higher ground than that stated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline. It must be on rather higher than purely national
grounds that we must base our claim. The waste of this valuable matter should not be allowed to go on, as much in the interests of England and Wales as in the interests of Scotland. There is a need for what I might call some quasi-capital expenditure—non-recurring expenditure—to get all this mass of information into the machinery of the office. Here is a mine of information which ought to be worked, which ought to be quarried out, which ought to be passed through our machinery and brought to the mills and presses of historical research. Knowledge and learning know no national boundaries, so do not let us put this case only on national grounds; it is in the interest of the whole country that these records should be properly preserved. Of course, the engagement of very highly skilled and relatively highly paid staff, which would be necessary for the full accomplishment of the work would be costly, but a strong case for it could be made out in normal times, and it is only with great regret that I have to make an alternative proposal, to which I shall refer in a moment, and to tell the Committee quite frankly that in these times it would be impossible to press the case for the expenditure which would be necessary in order to make a thorough job of this highly important work.
I should like to say in the meantime that nobody could be doing more than is being done at the moment by Mr. Angus and his colleagues in the Record Office. No small amount of time is spent in giving advice and assistance to research students. This is very valuable and useful work, and none of us would wish to curtail it, even though we might thereby get a little more of the time of these officials, and be able to turn them on to this other work which we are now discussing. I am sure that no Member of the Committee would wish that course to be adopted. A beginning has, however, been made with the arrangement, sorting and repairing of these old records, and with the arrangement of private collections which are coming into the Department at the present time. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities seemed to doubt whether they were coming in, but as a matter of fact we have had, in quite recent times, some very valuable collections, of which the
Lothian Papers are among the most recent. In short, the Record Office is not at the moment a stagnant pool of hopeless impotence and neglect. There flows through it a current of purposeful activity and highly skilled research, which will in happier times richly deserve and amply repay any financial reinforcement which this Committee may be prepared to give to it.
Reference was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan to the records of the Sheriff Courts. If I may say so, his quotations from the report of the committee were accurate, but opinion on this matter was not so unanimous as the report itself. There was a good deal of opposition to some of the proposals, particularly that in reference to centralisation of the custody of the records, including opposition from the city of Glasgow. At any rate, I think it would be premature to discuss the eventual disposal of these Sheriff Court records. In the meantime, obviously, an immediate and important problem is what is to be done about these national records which are in the Record Office now. Obviously it is vital, in the first place, to stop the physical deterioration of the records, and, therefore, as it is evident that we ought to take steps to do that, and to be prepared to take advantage at the earliest possible moment of any hopeful opportunity of obtaining money for coping adequately with this problem, I have arranged for a kind of reconnaissance to be undertaken, that is to say, for one or two highly skilled officials of the Department to be taken from their present work on private collections, in order that they may go down into these cellars and make, as far as they can, a cursory examination of these records, and form some opinion as to their date and value and as to the amount of money and the organisation that would be required for an adequate solution of the problem of their preservation, cataloguing and indexing.
To turn to the allied question which has been raised on this Vote, namely, that of the second class clerks, I think that, from what I said just now, Members of the Committee, even if they could not follow my necessarily untechnical and possibly, as my legal friends may think, very inadequate description of the functions of the Register House, will realise that there is there an extraordinarily
complicated and technical but very highly useful apparatus of land registration, which no doubt is envied by many other countries. It is not the sort of thing that could be built up at this stage of civilisation; it is a thing which has grown up gradually, and of which Scotland is rightly proud. I think I have mentioned before, but perhaps I may be allowed to say again, that there are now in the Record Book at the Record Office copies of conveyancing deeds—writs, as I understand they are called technically—covering the whole of the land of Soot-land with very few exceptions. These records have been growing up since the beginning of the 17th century. Based upon this Record Book, there are the two precis, namely, the Minute Book, which is a chronological precis, and the Search Sheet, which is a subject precis, the Search Sheet lying in the Sasine Office and the Minute Book in the Record Office.
It was suggested by the last keeper that possibly the Search Sheet, which is a comparatively modern innovation, could take the place of the Minute Book, and that it might be possible to dispense with the Minute Book altogether. That proposal was referred by my predecessor to what is now known as the Fleming Committee, and that committee has provided two reports in favour of the abolition of the Minute Book. Unfortunately, however, in spite of those two reports in favour of such a change, there are strong differences of opinion among lawyers as to its advisability. It is, as hon. Members will realise, a highly technical and complicated subject, and the decision taken will be vital for this very delicate and complicated apparatus of land registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan said that the Government must take their own responsibility and must decide policy, but, in a matter of this highly technical kind, a true decision is very difficult for a layman to make, and a false decision might cause, if not the collapse, at any rate the serious impairment of this very delicate machinery. Naturally, therefore, we are reluctant to take a decision unless we feel that it will command the confidence of those who will be working the machine in the future, and of the lawyers in Scotland who use it. Of course, a decision has to be taken, and we are moving towards that decision now. There will be no unnecessary delay but
we are naturally proceeding cautiously. We are not at a standstill but we are taking the necessary but cautious step to reach that decision at the earliest moment.
It is true that, in the meantime, a decision in the case of these second class clerks is being held up pending the decision of the larger question of reorganisation. These second class clerks have performed their duty well, and they deserve, not indeed generous treatment, for in present conditions the State cannot afford it, but just treatment from the House of Commons. The fact that they have waited a long time in happier days does not make it any easier now. When prices have fallen and when other salaried servants of the State have been subjected to cuts in their salaries—these men themselves have shared uncomplainingly in the cuts which all civil servants have had to bear—it makes it necessary to have an overwhelmingly strong case to justify a demand for increases of salary at this juncture.
Moreover, whether or not the Government decide to adopt the recommendations of the Fleming Committee, they will have to reorganise this Department. In my opinion, and in that of my predecessor, such reorganisation is necessary, and it can be carried out with an increase of efficiency in the working of the Department, and, if this reorganisation is going to be carried out within the next few months, at any rate before the next Estimates are presented, it will be impossible to go to the Treasury now and say we want a Supplementary Estimate for this purpose. Reorganisation will not necessarily provide a means of satisfying all the demands that have been made on behalf of the second class clerks, but it will compel a reallocation of duties and possibly go a considerable way to breaking up that block in promotion which, I understand, is the principal grievance from which these men have been suffering in recent years—as a result of which, for example, a man of 51 is still on the scale of pay of a second class clerk. Therefore, this reorganisation will be the tide in the affairs of the civil servants in the Register House for which we should be well advised to wait. When that reorganisation comes, I think there will be an overwhelming case for meeting,
at any rate, some of the complaints that have been made on behalf of these clerks.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any truth in the statement that is being made in Scotland—it is in the "Glasgow Herald" this morning—that there is a great amount of these records in the cellars of the Register House covered up with the dust of ages. There is no doubt that there are ever so many landlords who have not title deeds to their land. If I had my way, I would burn the Register House and do away with the whole business. That is what we will do when we take the business over. All the records in Scotland are records of the working-class being downtrodden right through the ages. To give an instance, in 1560, in the reign of Mary Queen of Scots, an Abbey in the West of Scotland and thousands of acres were sold practically for an old song, and they had to petition the Pope in order to safeguard the interests of the monastery. They said, "You have got the whole of the names and everything connected with it," but they did not get the Pope's Bull. It was found in a second-hand shop and bought for an old song. This is what they call keeping the records. It is only certain records that have been kept. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say about that statement? I have sat throughout this and the last Debate, and I have heard references to the Sheriff Court. I want to raise the action of the Sheriff in the Dumbarton Court last week when the time comes. I want to stake my claim on that.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do not think there is any Member of the House more assiduous in attention to his Parliamentary duties than the hon. Member, but he did not happen to be present when I made my speech. I met all the points he has put to me, and I do not like to weary the Committee by reiterating them. The point he has brought forward about a particular document is as new to me, as it is to him, but the Register House cannot be held responsible for the custody of documents which have not been brought to it, but only for those which are there. As I have announced, I am proposing to conduct a reconnaissance. We are going to see exactly what is there, the condition it is in, how much it will cost to put these
documents into a good state of preservation, and to index and catalogue them, and I do not propose to be deterred from that objective even by the hon. Member's threat that, when that has all been done, he is going to burn down the Register House.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £80, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POLICE, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £837,452, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salary and Expenses of the Inspector of Constabulary; Grants in respect of Police Expenditure and a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation in Scotland."—[NOTE.— £225,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The Secretary of State for Scotland on the last Vote defended the Government against any proposal which might be made to increase the emoluments of clerks in Register House, and he made it plain that in the present circumstances it was impossible to consider anything in the nature of an improvement in conditions as far as wages or salaries were concerned. But in the present Vote I notice that the inspector of constabulary is having an increase in his salary of £19. In many other items in the Vote there are considerable reductions, but the salary of the inspector of constabulary is to be increased from £1,013 to £1,032 a year in addition to which he is to get £25 a year for clerical assistance. I also note that the inspector of constabulary receives army retired pay of £134 10s., which means that he has a salary sufficient already without any further increase to enable him to carry on in an ordinary and decent way. He is almost as well paid as most of the sheriffs-substitute in Scotland. As a matter of fact, I believe he is paid better than some of them. I do not believe that the office which he holds is more important than the office held by the sheriff-substitute in any of the counties of Scotland. I should like some information from the right hon.
Gentleman as to the reason why the economy proposals do not appear to apply in this case, while they are made so very general among all other classes of servants in the country.
There is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in Scotland at the present time due to the administration of the law in reference to another matter with which I do not suppose that I should be allowed to deal at length. There is the application of the means test, which is considerably aggravating the already poverty-stricken conditions of a great many people in the West of Scotland. A number of meetings have been held protesting against the administration, and deputations have been appointed to meet public assistance committees, and in some cases there have been conflicts with the police. A demonstration was held in Kilbirnie, in Ayrshire, a few weeks ago, and a deputation was appointed to meet the public assistance committee. The members of the deputation, as far as my information goes, conducted themselves quite correctly and put their case, but, unfortunately, they had been accompanied by a large percentage of the population, a great proportion of whom are in receipt of public assistance.
I know that locality fairly well, and I do not think that there is a more law-abiding community in Scotland than is to be found in the whole of the county of Ayr, and certainly, as far as Kilbirnie is concerned, I believe it is the first time that anything in the nature of conflict has arisen between the people and the police authorities, certainly within my recollection. As to what, if any, provocation was given, I cannot say, but I know that the police charged the people who had gathered to hear the report of the deputation appointed to meet the public assistance committee. As a consequence of the conflict, a number of men were arrested, and varying terms of imprisonment were imposed upon them. Without knowing the actual circumstances which were presented to the sheriff, one cannot say very much upon the matter, but, as an ordinary outsider, reading the reports in the newspapers, and having the information which was sent to me in connection with the matter, I feel strongly that the sentences were a bit too severe.
There is very good cause for consideration of the matter by the Scottish Office and the remission of sentences. After
all, the character of the people in the locality ought to weigh to a considerable extent with the Scottish Office in a matter of this sort, taking into account the very serious condition of the people and realising how natural and easy it is, when persons are suffering from the poverty which is rampant in the South-West of Scotland, and particularly in that part of Ayrshire, to be inflamed to the extent of disregarding the police regulations. I am not arguing—nobody on our side will argue—that the regulations promulgated by the police for the purpose of maintaining public order ought to be set at naught, but we want to put before the Department that the whole of the circumstances should be taken into consideration, and not least the fact that men and women, particularly those in prison, are suffering from what they believe to be—and I think rightly believe to be—a very strong sense of unfair treatment. I do not think that it is fair, and I do not think it makes the law any stronger in England, Scotland or Wales if the evidence in a prosecution of this kind is to be entirely police evidence.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should like to have the guidance of the Minister on this matter. If this were a Vote for police in England the matter which the hon. Member is now raising would only be in order in the case of the Metropolitan Police, which is the sole subject for which the Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible. I am not aware what is the corresponding responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and before the Debate proceeds I should be glad if he would tell me what responsibility he has for the police in Scotland.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: My responsibility for the police is confined to the administration of the grant, which means that I am responsible for seeing that a general level of proficiency of the police is maintained, but the chief constable is the officer responsible for the discipline of the force to the local authority and takes his orders from the magistrates. If there is any complaint about the way that he exercises his authority complaint should be made to the magistrates or, if it be alleged that the police have broken the law and given ground for a criminal complaint, to the Procurator-Fiscal.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: So far s the chief of police is concerned in Scotland he is officially responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In regard to the appointment of the chief of police, neither a county council nor a town council can make such an appointment without the appointment being referred to the Secretary of State. He has the final word in all these things. He represents the King in Scotland, and he has no right to say that a town council or a county council or the magistrate has the final word. He has even more power in this matter than the Lord Advocate.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The position is, that such an appointment is made by the local authority, but as I am responsible for half of the chief constable's salary, which comes on my Votes, I have to be consulted, and I have to see that the local authority does actually appoint a chief constable in accordance with law. The appointment is, however, made by the local authority. It is to the magistrates of the borough that the chief constable is responsible for the maintenance of order. The obligation is laid upon the magistrates of the borough to maintain order, and the chief constable is responsible to them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: There is more in this matter than appears on the surface. If a town council or a county council wish to get rid of the chief constable they cannot do so without first getting the sanction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the same way there is the greatest difficulty in England if a town council wishes to turn off a chief constable. The Secretary of State in England could keep him on. For example, there was the case at St. Helens.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would be in order on this Vote if he sought to criticise the action of the Secretary of State for not consenting to the appointment of a chief constable or, if his consent was necessary, he declined to consent to a dismissal. It would appear that the case in Scotland is the same as in England and that the police are responsible to the local authority. Therefore, the question of the conduct of the police under a local authority does not arise on this Vote.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: While respectfully expressing agreement with your Ruling, I would only add for the information of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs that in regard to the dismissal of a Chief Constable the matter rests entirely with the local authority. They have the power to dismiss their chief constable, but the chief constable under the Police Appeals Act has the right of appeal.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: We are discussing the salary of the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is not the authority that controls the police, I take it that the Inspector of Constabulary has some authority over them, and it is his salary that we are discussing. Kilbirnie is not a burgh. It is a local district authority under the county council. If the police in a village like Kilbirnie take some action that is unwarranted then, surely, a Vote dealing with the payment of the chief of the police this is the proper. time to raise the question of the conduct of the police. I understand that no one with any real authority other than a sergeant was in control of the police there when a charge was made upon the people. I do not think it should lie in the hands of a comparatively small official of police to charge and baton people who are meeting together for a lawful purpose. We are not asking for anything in the nature of chaos, neither are we asking that there ought not to be respect paid to police regulations, but we do say that before people are batoned by the police there should be someone in authority who will give the people an opportunity of dispersing before any such action is taken.
My main object in raising the matter is to appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Most, if not all, of the men who were incriminated and put into prison are of good character, and I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not exercise the clemency which his position entitles him to do and to remit a considerable part of their sentence. Now that the whole thing is over, that would be the most satisfactory way out of it. I have had some communication with the Secretary of State on the question, and I am raising the matter for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain whether he can exercise some little
authority over the police and induce the local authorities concerned to exercise a little more discretion in dealing with organised meetings during this period of unexampled poverty in that particular locality.
I should like to raise another subject. There is a feeling in the minds of a number of people in certain parts of Scotland that a, system has grown up, or is growing up, under which omnibus companies give free passes to officials of the police. I do not know to what extent that statement is true, but if it is true, it is an evil habit. The Secretary of State has informed me that he does not approve of the practice, but I think it is well that the matter should be referred to here so that attention will be drawn to it by the authorities in different parts of Scotland.

Mr. McGOVERN: I rise to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), and I want to appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland—for I understand it is within his jurisdiction and power—to review the sentences of men and women throughout Scotland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It may or may not be that it is within the power of the Secretary of State to reduce sentences, but that is a matter which, if raised at all, must be raised on his own salary. It cannot possibly be raised on this Vote.

Mr. McGOVERN: I want to deal with the question of police action, and, from the rulings given, it is becoming very difficult to discuss police action at all in relation to this Vote. I want to deal with the fact that the police in one or two parts of the country have been acting, to put it moderately, with a lack of tact and a lack of understanding of the spirit of the people who have been congregating together in demonstration to protest against the infliction of poverty and hardships. These people have limited opportunities of protesting against Measures that were put hastily through, and certainly not understood by the people of the country at the last election. It was after the period of the election that they fully understood the Measures put through by the House, and therefore their opportunities were limited to making their protest against the means test especially. In various parts of the
country, they got together in demonstration to protest against the infliction of this poverty and hardship, and no one in this House would deny that men and women at least should have the right of reasonable democratic expression in every area against what they conceive to be the hardships to themselves and to their families.
In every part of the country there was a spontaneous coming together of ordinary, decent men and women against these hardships,, and I do not think we are entitled to expect that, if legislation is passed hastily through this House and not explained or understood previous to a democratic appeal to the country and, as I think, cunningly hidden when they went to the country, these people should have to wait for four or five years before they can have the right again to express their discontent and their resentment against this proposal. Therefore they come together and express, in a reasonable, democratic manner their aims and their desires. I do not wish to be unreasonable or to make any wild or savage attack on the police in the country. In many ways I have a respect for and understanding of the police and their duties, and I recognise that law and order must be maintained in any kind of civilised society; but I do want to say that we can understand that passions are easily aroused when men are driven to the stage when they feel they are enduring tremendous hardships and, as they believe, unnecessary hardships at the present time.
9.30 p.m.
They come into the streets and other places, and protest against this legislation. It may be true that in many places there has been in the crowds a minority of the people who may have been determined to exploit the feelings and the passions of the people for ulterior purposes. I am not going to deny that there are sections at times who are more concerned with that than with the real sufferings and feelings of the people, but I hold that the great mass of people are orderly and law-abiding, though they certainly believe that in a democratic civilisation they have the right to express their antagonism and resentment in some way. How could we ever have progressed to the present state of democracy if we had not had that right throughout the ages for sections of
the people to express themselves in that fashion?
The vote was won by men and women having some right to express their discontent in the country and at various stages they were batoned down, sabres were drawn and rifles were used, in order to suppress them, when they were demanding their rights. These people come together to protest against scales of relief, which they consider are totally inadequate. Many of these people to-day, according to what we read in the Press, are driven to commit suicide because they cannot feed, clothe and house their wives and families. There was a case of suicide reported in the "Glasgow Evening Times" last evening where a man committed suicide by jumping through a window, and it was stated that he did so because his unemployment benefit was cut off, and he was without funds of any kind. There are large masses of the people without lighting of any kind in their homes or the necessary fuel to generate heat in the bodies of their wives and children during the winter months. They are being evicted from their homes in various parts of the country because of their inability to pay rents and they cannot keep a shelter over their heads. They come together in the streets to protest against this lack of humanity in the 20th century. They got into a crowd, the police see the crowd, and, naturally, passions are aroused on both sides.
It may be a very small incident which compels the police to take action without the application of reason, and the result is sometimes that some person makes a suggestion to which, in the heat of the moment, the people respond, and they are arrested in consequence of that act. I do not deny that there have been actions taken that one cannot commend, and which one would condemn, but allowance should be made in some degree for the circumstances in which these people find themselves. If I may cite one example, there was a demonstration and police action in the city of Glasgow which was brought up in the trial there. Two minutes before the police batoned and rode down the crowd, according to the evidence given by the police themselves, I requested that time should be given to confer with the other people who had organised the demonstration to see what was going to be done. My intention at that stage was to urge the people that, as
there was a danger of riot and trouble, they should march back and be satisfied with the demonstration that had taken place, in order to prevent anything of that nature arising. The sheriff practically agreed that there was no evidence to prove that I came there to create disorder. Had time been given probably no riot of any kind would have taken place.
I suggest that there may be a lack of tact and understanding on the part of the police. In regard to the incident referred to by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), a number of people whose characters were absolutely clean and who were opposed to disorder certified in their evidence that unnecessary and most inhumane action had been taken. Whether that was true or not I do not know, I was not on the spot, and I can only judge from the evidence given. Let, me put this point to the Secretary of State: is it not rather a remarkable thing that the evidence for the defence is always completely discounted and the evidence for the police is completely accepted on every occasion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in criticising the decision of the courts. That is a thing he cannot do unless he tables a Motion.

Mr. McGOVERN: I will try to keep within the limits of your Ruling. A clash took place on the 1st of May in Dundee because the authorities in that area prohibited the demonstration taking place.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting outside my Ruling. As long as he confines himself to the general recommendations of the Secretary of State, who has a certain control to issue orders dealing with these matters, he is in order. When he deals with specific eases he is criticising local bodies for whom the Secretary of State is not responsible.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am citing these instances in order to make an appeal to the Secretary of State. I am using these examples not to criticise the action of the local authority and their refusal to grant permission but to show what led up to the clash and how the police should have taken more tactful action in the discharge of their duties. In this case the police took action, according to the evidence, and used their batons at the beginning. Is it not much better for the police
on every occasion to approach someone responsible for the demonstration, to try and get an agreement not to break the law completely, but to allow them to make their protest, to have their procession, and to make it as thorough and democratic and legitimate as possible? I appeal to the Secretary of State to consider with his advisers the issuing of some instructions that in all these demonstrations the utmost tact and understanding and leniency should be shown to people who are trying to make an effective protest on behalf of their wives and families. The brute: beasts of the forest have the right of tearing from nature what they require. Human beings have certain rights of food, clothing and shelter, and they can only make themselves heard in very limited ways. If the police were considerate towards these people and sympathetic and not simply go out with the determination at all costs—I do not allege that they do in every case—to prevent the demonstration we should have fewer clashes and less trouble in the country.
I believe in demonstrations, in showing to the ruling classes and to the governing bodies what is in my mind and the minds of my fellow men. I believe in protesting. I do not believe in throwing defenceless men and women against the police. It is cruel and unjust for any person to bring people together in the street and throw them against the drawn batons of authority. I am not in favour of doing that, but I am in favour of every legitimate means of protesting and showing the Government of this country that human beings have a right to food, clothing and shelter in a civilised centre. I ask the Secretary of State to review the sentences which have been imposed especially on the women, to wipe out these sentences, as a gesture to those who are helpless and unemployed, to show to them that if they have exceeded the limits allowed by the police that at least he is sympathetic in his understanding of their demands and is prepared to concede—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is raising a point which I said he must not.

Mr. McGOVERN: I have said all I want to say; but it seems to me that the limits drawn by you have been absolutely unreasonable.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not criticise the Rulings of the Chair. He must withdraw that remark.

Mr. McGOVERN: I certainly will not withdraw it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then I must ask the hon. Member to leave the House.

Mr. McGOVERN: I certainly will leave the House. I bow to your Ruling in that respect, but I still have my opinion.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The police have very difficult tasks to perform, and no task is more difficult than the handling of a large number of people, called in the language of the law a mob, which may rapidly become a riotous mob. The law should be known to the gentleman who has just retired, quietly I am glad to say on this occasion from the Committee, that if you are one of a mob, although you may be a perfectly peaceful person and are only looking on, if the mob becomes disorderly you are guilty because your presence there encourages them to go on. It is no use you saying that you were there just out of curiosity. You have no right to be there at all out of curiosity. It is one of the occasions on which you may get three months in gaol or a tap on the (head from a policeman's baton, a very painful thing to get. But yet one of the few occasions when idle curiosity gets what it deserves. The hon. Gentleman who has just retired was telling us about a particularly disorderly mob which he had witnessed somewhere in Ayrshire. He did not tell us anything about the mob at which he and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) were present about a fortnight ago in Glasgow. I do not know the exact place, but I saw it in the newspaper, and it appeared to me that the police there took a hand on behalf of the hon. Gentlemen who were being dragged from the platform by a very disorderly mob. I think that they must have been profoundly grateful to the police on that occasion. I think the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs was so indignant that he called them "a lot of dirty rats" and used words of that description. I do not
know that they really came to blows, but that is very likely. I am not so sure that these hon. Gentlemen would have been very much annoyed if the police had drawn their batons and given a few pats to those who were molesting them. "The policeman's lot is not a happy one." The police are always comparatively few in numbers. When there is a mob it is often a case of one hundred to one against them and they cannot stop to engage in a Parliamentary discussion with individual orators in the mob. If you could guarantee a number of police equal to that of the multitude round about, they might engage in such a Parliamentary discussion.
I recollect seeing a riot in Glasgow in 1919. I was standing afar off like the Levite. I took very good care that my curiosity was situated geographically at a very long distance. But I saw there the late Member for Linlithgowshire, Mr. Shinwell, who evidently knew the law quite well. For if ever I saw a marathon runner when he realised that the mob was getting disorderly, it was Mr. Shinwell. I believe he ran all the way home to Partick. When there is trouble about you must assist the police or get home to your bed. I believe that he got under the bed. But the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs did not know the law. He sought to argue with the police, as he does here with the Chair, and the policeman gave him a crack on the head with a baton. It was very painful. He told me about it; he told me He was unconscious for 25 minutes. He has been far, far too sanguine. For those of us who have heard him speak question if he has yet recovered his senses; I do not believe he has completely got the better of it. The people ought to understand that when a huge mob collect? without proper leadership there is all the material for a crash.
I remember reading of that in the old volunteer days, in the time of Napoleon III, when the volunteers went out for sham fights care had to be taken that different regiments did not get close enough to each other, because the tendency was, when one mass of men got opposite another mass, for them to come to blows. I remember an old picture of a man coming home to his wife after one of these sham fights, and when asked how he had fared said he had enjoyed himself
but he wished they had been real bullets. That is what the nature of mankind is. Men get to blows with very little provocation. When you get a comparatively few police dealing with a big mob it is almost like a Department of State against the taxpayer, one is disciplined and the other is not, there is grave danger of disorder. Bismarck once said that private interest is an organised force, but public interest is a mob. I have seen hundreds of stalwart miners scattered by a scare of police. In Fife, 5,000 miners were scattered by 45 policemen. Yet miners are generally extraordinarily law-abiding people. You get these largo assemblies, these demonstrations, and most of those who take part have not even a thought of being disorderly. But once the trouble starts you never know where it will end. You are obliged to leave these things to the police.
I remember once congratulating a superintendent of police on his military skill in scattering a large mob of very troublesome characters with only 22 police He told me that he had had an early experience of riots. He said that as a rule not 1 per cent. of men were inclined to be lawless, but that if you get 7,000 of them together they become a mob and troublesome riots are likely to develop. He added, "I lie in wait for the small nucleus of evildoers, and I give them a few taps with the baton. It is extraordinary what a civilising effect that has. Of course I try to get my police not to hit on the head, and if they do so to loosen their hold on the baton at the moment it touches the bead, so that it will not cut a man's head. But it leaves a large lump the size of an egg, and that lump remains so sore that the man cannot put his hat on for about a, fortnight, and as long as the lump is aching he takes no interest in public affairs."
I recommend the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) to take into consideration the extraordinary difficulties of the police. There is no class of men for whom I have more respect than for the police. To begin with, they have to undergo a severe physical examination. It would be a good thing if the Members of this House underwent a physical examination. Many of us no doubt would be rejected, but there would at least be the assurance that legislation would be passed suitable for the fit man, whereas an unfit man is
apt to pass legislation for those only who are morally and physically unfit. There is no more humane body of men than the police. I remember a murder or serious crime of some kind that was committed in one of the worst districts of a large Scots town. An old woman was the first to come across the tragedy. When she was asked what she did she replied, "I ran out and cried, 'Police, police.'" That is the first thing that is done when there is trouble. Then the policeman comes in and acts sanely and judicially. The policeman has to be a man very much above the average in intelligence and physique.
I put it to the hon. Member for Shettleston, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs would agree with this proposition, that the police, on the whole, do their duty faithfully and well and with the minimum amount of aggression. I do not think that any special instructions are necessary from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or from the Home Office. I do not know as regards the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I certainly do not think that the Home Office know the duties of the police as well as the policemen themselves. Otherwise they would not have enforced that extraordinary charge for the giving of information by policemen in the case of certain actions—a charge which the policemen themselves repudiate. If you leave the police to do their duty conscientiously, I think they will carry out their duty just as well in time to come as they have done in the past. I think there can be very little criticism of their action, either in the case of which the hon. Member for Shettleston spoke, or in the case in which they protected the hon. Member himself and his colleague opposite from the fury of a Communist mob.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I know that the Committee wishes to pass on to other Votes and I mast be brief in my reply to the points raised by Members on this Vote. The hon. Member who opened the Debate referred to the salary of the Inspector of Police. The increase, which is only an increase of £19, is one which the State is bound to give him. It is an increase in the normal incremental scale given to all civil servants, according to the terms on which they are engaged, and there is no difference between the
treatment of the Inspector of Police in this matter and the treatment given to any other public servant. His salary is, of course, subject to the economy cut on the bonus. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) raised a question about the action of the police in connection with disturbances which occurred as a result of protests against the means test. Let me make it quite clear to the Committee that the Government fully recognise the right of the public to protest against the Government or against anything else, and there is not the slightest desire on the part of the Government to put any restraint upon those measures of protest and those demonstrations other than that which is necessary in order to safeguard the rights of the public.
It is the duty of the magistrates to preserve law and order and I have to repeat that the police are not responsible to me but to the local magistrates. It is their duty to see to the preservation of law and order and the preservation of public rights such as the right of free passage through the streets. Subject to that duty, it is the custom of the magistrates in every part of the country to give opportunities for the free expression of opinion and that is in accordance with the wish of the Government. But if, as the hon. Member for Shettleston clearly admitted in the course of his speech, some person makes a suggestion, which people in hot blood may respond to, sometimes that suggestion leads to violent attacks on the rights and the property of other people, to the smashing of plate glass windows on a large scale, for instance, or the obstruction of traffic, and it is necessary then for the police to take measures for the preservation of the rights of the public. The hon. Member for Shettleston said that he believed in demonstrations and that he was in favour of every legitimate form of protest. On that there is no difference between us, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has said, the police have exercised great tact and discretion in the handling of the very difficult situations with which they have occasionally been faced in one or two of our big cities. There is no doubt that in some cases the burgh police have had very
heavy duties to perform and I am convinced, according to my information, that they have exercised much discretion and forbearance and have carried out their duties properly and efficiently.
10.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Hamilton also raised the question of free passes on public conveyances for chief constables. I have already said in answer to a question, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for the opportunity of stating it more formally in this Committee, that that is a custom which, I think, is open to the gravest objections. I hope that the publicity which has been given to this matter by has question and by my answer, may result in the ending of this custom if, in fact, it still exists, as I am disposed to doubt.

Mr. KIRKW00D: I put a question in regard to an individual chief constable and mentioned the case, but I also asked whether it was not the case that councillors and magistrates in the counties were getting this privilege from the private omnibus companies and the Secretary of State said he did not think he had any jurisdiction over magistrates and councillors. I think he ought to emphasise the fact that neither magistrates nor town councillors, any more than chief constables, ought to get these privileges.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think it is quite obvious that anybody who exercises judicial functions in relation to these companies ought not to have free passes on these vehicles. That is strongly my opinion. But as regards county councillors who were also referred to by the hon. Member, their case I think raises a different order of considerations. The county councillor does not exercise judicial functions in relation to these companies, and I think it would be an undue restriction of the field from which you can recruit county councillors if you said that they were on no account to have free passes on these vehicles even if they themselves were directors of the company. I do not think it necessary in the public interest or desirable that such restrictions should apply to county councillors.
The Committee will expect when we are dealing with such an important Vote as the Police Vote, that I should say something about its broader aspects. The authorised strength of the forces in Scotland at the end of last year was 6,626,
representing one constable to every 578 persons in the burghs and one constable to every 1,001 persons in the county area. The total cost to the Exchequer, including the salary of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary to which, the hon. Member opposite referred, for 1932–33, is estimated at £1,062,452, a reduction of £47,506 on the year 1931–32. This reduction is mainly due to the 5 per cent, cut in the police pay which was made last October, and to the new scale of pay for new entrants into the service. They were both brought into operation on the 1st October last.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Is there any increase in the numbers?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: No. In fact, there is a steady decrease, due to reorganisation within the force, and one particular factor which is coming into operation increasingly, and that is the consolidation of forces. Hon. Members will remember that under the Scottish Local Government Act, 1929, we in Scotland took a different course from England; we took power to effect the amalgamation of police forces in small burghs in Scotland with the county force, and actually in eight small burghs the police forces were amalgamated with the county force, and two lots of two counties were also amalgamated at the same time. Further than that, this year Dumfries burgh and Dumfries county have come to an amalgamation agreement, which came into operation as from the 15th May, and the result of that is that there are now 48 grant-receiving police forces in Scotland, 29 county and 19 burghs. The police have, I think, by their conduct in very difficult circumstances during this winter, earned the confidence of this Committee and of the people of Scotland.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £28,785, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice, and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."—[Note: £14,400 has been voted on account.]

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I move this formally, in order that the Vote may be discussed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been in the House a good number of years, and this is one of the few occasions on which I ever remember the Lord Advocate's department coming under the scrutiny of the Committee. The first point that I want to raise on this Vote is, comparatively speaking, a very minor point. We have now passed through this House a Bill in connection with hire purchase in Scotland, and it has gone to another place, but in the meantime I would ask the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland if they cannot see, by administrative action, that nobody is imprisoned under the old Act. At the week-end I came across two cases of people who approached me in this matter, neither of whom would have been imprisoned, I believe, under the new Bill. In one case the woman was prepared to tell where the goods wore, and I believe that under the new Measure an adjustment would have been made. I therefore hope the Lord Advocate will see that administratively the position may be eased before the new Measure comes into force.
The second point that I want to raise is also, comparatively speaking, a minor point, and it has to do with the procedure in the Glasgow Sheriff Court. For good or ill, a number of children are charged at the Sheriff Court. A great many are taken before the ordinary City courts, but a number of children are sometimes prosecuted before the Sheriff. I had occasion a considerable time ago to act in the capacity, not of defending, but of taking some children before the Sheriff. I have no complaints about the Sheriff's conduct, but I merely want to raise a minor point that I feel could be adjusted. The week before I had appeared in the same court, and at that court there were High Court cases being tried, including people charged with murder. I thought
it rather ghastly that children of tender years, round about 10 and 11, should be charged in the same court, before the same Sheriff, who was in the same clothes. I thought it bad from another aspect, that you were making these children what we call in the West of Scotland—if I may use a phrase that the Lord Advocate may know and that certain of my hon. Friends here know—gallous, having been in the same court as somebody on a capital charge. It would have been much hotter if they had been taken into the Sheriff's private room and charged there, with the Sheriff not attired in his Sheriff's garb,, but in his everyday dress.
May I turn to another small question, which I have raised many times, in regard to the procedure at the Glasgow Sheriff Small Debt Court? I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is not now in the House. I know he is coming back, but I want to pay him the compliment of having attempted, along with the Solicitor-General for Scotland, to meet me in regard to this matter of the small debt court. They have now made some arrangements to try and spread the time over. The Lord Advocate held his present office under the Labour Government, and he knows that the procedure at the rent court ought to be that the sheriff should determine every case. There is nobody who, in the courts of this country, ought to be allowed to take the sheriff's place in that court. It is true that since this question was first raised the procedure has been eased, and the sheriff in most cases still exercises his functions, but a large number of people are now being sued in the small debt court.
It would be out of order to argue the rights and wrongs of Unemployment Benefit and the means test, but nobody will deny that there is extreme poverty, and people under these conditions must be treated with a certain amount of sympathy. People are being sued for rent, and, while legally they may be in arrear, in actual fact they are not in arrear, because they are being sued for fore-handed rent, sometimes as much as a quarter in advance. There is a case in the Bridgeton Division of a man who has been 28 years in one house and has never been in arrears; now he is being
faced with a fore-handed demand of £7 12s. Many people in present circumstances cannot pay a sum like that at once, and they would like to pay it week by week. This man, however, is being taken to the court and mulcted in expenses, and all that would be saved if he were allowed to pay week by week. I would ask the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary to consider calling a meeting of Glasgow house factors to see if they can in terrible times like these get them not to insist on fore-handed rent. I know that they cannot compel the house factors, but I am sure that if the factors gave their word to do it, it would be carried out in the main.
Hon. Members can remember the system of fortnightly and monthly wages in Glasgow. That was abolished in order to ease the position for the poor people. I am sure that one sheriff at least would be glad, for his own sake and for the sake of the administration of his court, to be relieved of enforcing orders for the payment of fore-handed rent. Part of this Vote is for the upkeep of the sheriff courts. There is talk of economy, and if we could do away with the evil of forehanded rent it would result in a great economy and saving of time in the administration of the sheriff courts. The three Ministers will soon be free from the House for the Recess, and I urge them to spend a part of their time in having a conference with the Glasgow sheriff and the house factors to see what can be done in this matter. I am certain that the better type of house factor would not be unapproachable if the powers that be make the approach.
I turn from that to another question, which most particularly affects the Lord Advocate, "The silk trial" as it is commonly called. I am not going to enter into the rights or wrongs of a judgment given by His Majesty's judges; the question I wish to raise concerns the methods of the Lord Advocate's Department—I do not know if that is the best word to use, and I will say the way in which the subject has been tackled. More than 12 months ago all Glasgow and, indeed, the whole of Scotland, was startled to read in the daily papers that 12 or more very prominent Glasgow business men had been arrested and charged with having done certain wrongful things in connection
with the formation of companies in the West of Scotland. Everybody, without regard to the angle of politics, was interested in what was going to happen. For a time the arrested men were refused bail. The Lord Advocate and his Department set a very stiff upper lip against the granting of bail. After the lapse of a certain time bail in considerable sums was granted to each one of the arrested men.
Let the House note that considerable sums were insisted upon as bail, because when we came to criticise the lower bail on which the men were allowed out later it was said, "The real deterrent against a man is not the sum of money on. which, he has been released on bail, but the fact that the police and the authorities will know where to lay their hands on him at any particular time." We say that the sums demanded as bail were either too high at the beginning or too low later. It seems to me that the Lord Advocate, in fixing bail, as it was his prerogative to do, fixed bail at sums that were far too low in the second instance, because by that time the men had been sentenced, and if there was any inducement for them to go, surely it would be greater after sentence had been passed than before. While the judge fixes bail in cases of dispute the Lord Advocate and his Department, without the judge, can fix bail mutually with defendants.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): That is entirely inaccurate. The hon. Member is confusing two things.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was coming to that point. I know you are going to tell me that, there is a difference in the case of appeal—that on appeal only the courts can then fix bail; but in other cases, as the Lord Advocate is well aware, bail is fixed in negotiation between the officers serving under him and the defendants' counsel. I have fixed bail in dozens of cases every day in the week when negotiating with the Procurator-Fiscal.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Prior to trial.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, prior to trial; but this is what I am coming to. I am not criticising the judges—I do not say that I would not like to, but I should be out of order—but I criticise the Lord Advocate's Department because they acquiesced in the fixing of the bail. The
judges, in the fixing of bail, are guided entirely by the Lord Advocate. While in effect the judge lays down the sum, the judge will not grant bail unless the Crown authorities acquiesce in a reasonable sum, and also give a reasonable guarantee as to the man being got at in reasonable time by the authorities. My charge against the: Lord Advocate is that, while in fact a sum was laid down by the judge, he, who had insisted on huge sums in the origin, only insisted upon getting, after the sentence, a minor and meagre amount. It is not my right or my duty here to contest the judge's ultimate decision, but I say that if these men had been poor men, who had been engaged in a riot in a street, and had been appealing, the Lord Advocate, going to the Appeal Court or the judiciary court in Edinburgh, would have insisted on much larger sums being forthcoming. Nobody in the West of Scotland can gainsay that for the Lord Advocate to say in the pre-trial days that huge sums should be forthcoming for payment and, on the later days, after years have expired, to allow it to go uncontested as a miserable sum, were two contradictory courses that ordinary men and women would find difficult to reconcile.
I turn from that to the other aspect. Twelve persons., as I said, were arrested and, after a long time, the total costs to the Crown of this trial—and I know, because I used to go about the sheriff court, and it was only with great difficulty that I could see anyone at the sheriff court. Every time you went near it—it was Mr. Adrian and then Mr. Godfrey Hamilton—every time you knocked, you put your two hands on—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I rise to a point of Order I understand that these cases are under appeal just now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I knew this point was coming. I will tell the Committee about it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it in order to discuss a case which is in the hands of the judges, and before it is finished?

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will realise that I feel a—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not taking advantage: of you.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will realise that when the case is actually before the court—

Mr. MAXTON: It is not before the court.

The CHAIRMAN: —or is about to come before the court, it is most inadvisable to raise any question in regard to the case.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The judges are considering it just now; the appeal has been heard.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I put the facts? I was not going into the question of the rights or wrongs of the case, what I am going into is what I have a right to go into—the costs of the trial. Secondly, I was dealing not with the two men that are now in the case, but with the 10 men that are away, and I am entitled to discuss that. That is all that I am going to discuss, if the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) had had the good manners to wait. We have been very decent with him, but he has tried to be very indecent to us, and he says hard things to us. What I am saying is that these 10 men are away, and there is no question of a single thing being before the courts about them. The trial is finished for them. I am dealing with the 10 men. The two I have left out of account. As you say, it may be that I would be out of order if I dealt with them. I have no wish to take advantage of anybody who is not up in Scots law. The point is that 12 men were arrested, and the Lord Advocate's Department, and practically the whole Sheriff Court Department of Glasgow, were engaged on that matter. Then, for some mysterious reason, the charges against four of these men were dropped. Eight were taken to the High Court, and by process there in certain cases the charges were withdrawn while the trial was on.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has made a statement which is nothing but a gross exaggeration. These men were indicted upon three separate charges, and, as regards two of them, one of those charges was withdrawn, but the indictment stood exactly as it was as regards the others.

Mr. MAXTON: One was discharged during the course of the trial.

The LORD ADVOCATE: One was discharged owing to illness. Is the hon. Member going to suggest that we should bring an ill man to trial?

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is one of the points of my charge against the Lord Advocate. He is not going to put me into the false position of saying that you must prosecute an ill man, but this was a rich ill man, and I know that day in and day out in the Glasgow courts ill men and ill women are prosecuted, and no consideration is shown to them, even in the case of far smaller crimes than this. I do not say that an ill person should be prosecuted, but I could give case after case where men and women who were far from well—even women on the point of childbirth—have been prosecuted, and nothing like the same consideration has been shown to them. The Lord Advocate showed consideration for these men. Indeed, one of them, I understand, was extremely ill before the trial, and the charge against him was dropped on the ground of ill-health. I ask the Lord Advocate, in view of what he has done in the case of these comparatively well-off people, to issue instructions that in cases of illness every one of his subordinates should do the same in every court throughout the country in the case of lesser charges and of very much poorer people.
With regard to the ultimate trial, only two of these 12 men were ultimately convicted. It seems to me that the theory of the law of Scotland in these matters is that, before the Crown engage in large-scale public expenditure, they should see that their case is so well constructed that a conviction is reasonably possible. In view of the fact that in so many of these cases the charges were withdrawn before the Crown case was presented to the court, that even after its presentation the charges were partly dropped in certain cases, that in a number of other cases the men were discharged, and that even those found guilty were found guilty of minor offences, either the Lord Advocate's Department has been guilty of undertaking a case which they could not prosecute properly, or they were guilty of prosecuting certain charges which they found themselves not properly equipped to prosecute when they were gone into.
On the question of the judges I make no comment, but there is great feeling in Scotland with regard to the Lord Advocate's Department, and I desire to express as best I can the feeling of ordinary people on this matter. These 12 men were arrested, and 10 of them were found to be not guilty. It is felt that, because these were rich men, the Lord Advocate's Department was not showing the same zeal, the same integrity, and the same push as it would have shown if they had been minor citizens guilty of lesser crimes. They feel that men and women every day are arrested and charged and the Lord Advocate's Department prosecutes them with a skill and ingenuity which they do not show in the case of rich men. The proof of that is that, out of 12 men who were arrested, two were found guilty of minor charges while 10 were discharged by the judge or the charges were withdrawn entirely. The Department to that extent stands indicted and the Lord Advocate must make a defence of his conduct.

Mr. MACQISTEN: If I may refer, first of all, to what the hon. Member has said about tenants being taken to the Small Debt Court for non-payment of rent, surely, if a man signs a contract and undertakes to pay rent—

Mr. BUCHANAN: That may be legally right but, when bad times come and a man is working only three days a week, the house factors might take a different view. We may be entitled to certain sums from foreign countries but we recognise changed circumstances and do not always insist upon them.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I mention one thing that my hon. Friend has omitted? It often happens that, where the proprietor of a house has changed his factor, a new factor comes in with a fresh book on which is printed, what may not have been the custom before, rent "payable in advance." The tenant does not read it and a few months afterwards falls into arrears and finds he is hold to have entered into a new contract that he did not know about.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am very glad to hear the explanation. It seems to me very like the Chancellor of the Exchequer extracting three quarters of the Income Tax in advance, as he did last January. I am surprised to hear that such a thing
can happen as that a man who has paid his rent faithfully and well for 28 years should be haled into the Small Debt Court. I feel sure that the vast majority of factors; would not act in such a way. They should exercise the greatest possible indulgence in such cases. Perhaps this Debate will serve a useful purpose, because they will take it from the hon. Member, and also, I hope, from me, that an old tenant who has loyally paid his rent should not be brought to the court. The expenses in the Small Debt Court in Glasgow are, perhaps, the smallest of any court; within the Empire. It is a wonderful court and I have spent many days in it. The expenses amount to shillings where they are guineas in other courts. But, when they have good tenants who have been paying their rent, it is ill advised and bad business to drag them to the court. It may be that they get the judgment and think that they need not do anything. All the same they are putting an expense of several shillings upon the people's rent which is taking them all their time to pay. I hope that they will take to heart the discussion which has taken place in this Committee, and that they will exercise their right in this matter with great delicacy towards respectable tenants, as are the majority of the people.
The next question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised was that of bail in the silk case. He seemed to think that the first bail had been fixed at a very high figure because the Lord Advocate's Department felt that it was a particularly bad case and a bad crime, and that the accused must in some way be punished by fixing high bail and that the bail should be so high that there was no possibility of their bolting. The main purpose of bail is to make sure that the accused will turn up at the trial. There is no other purpose. All but murder cases are bailable because when a man's neck is at stake, no amount of money will prevent him from trying to get it out of jeopardy. But in this particular case the men turned up at the first trial, and at the appeal, and whether there was any bail or not is purely irrelevant and of no importance. Whether the first bail or the second bail was 10 pence or £1,000 the question is, Did it affect its purpose? The real complaint ought to be on the part of the accused, for they can say, "By our pre-
sence here no bail was needed, no matter how small the bail might have been." You should get rid of the idea that bail is a punitive thing. Sometimes it involves cases of sexual offences and the like, but in a case of this kind you were dealing with 12 respectable citizens. There is no question of the poor and the rich about it. For they are all poor enough now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have met some of them since.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Perhaps they had a little of their former state clinging about them. As a matter of fact, the civil liability of those men was so great that the hon. Member for Gorbals can take it from me that none of them answered to the description of rich. There is nothing more complicated than one of these extraordinary company cases. People may think that they have a right to a real investigation, examination and scrutiny, but it is an extremely difficult thing to keep right. I should be surprised to learn that there has been a case like the silk case since the City of Glasgow Bank case 60 years ago. There has not been a case like it. Mark you, it came before a judge and a jury. No counsel, no Lord Advocate can guarantee, no matter how careful he is and what investigations he makes, and how skilful he is, what would happen to a case tried by judge and jury.
I remember once giving evidence against a prominent Scottish city. I was asked what happened when the city lost a case. I said, "The town clerk went back to the magistrates' court, and said, 'Oh, the Court of Session is wrong again.'" Then the magistrates proceeded to take counsel one with another, and decided that they should appoint the judges and dismiss them, and there would be no more bad law and unsatisfactory decisions against their city. It often happens that you may have the best possible advice, and that you may be represented by the most brilliant counsel, and yet the court may decide against you, and all that you can say is that you do not believe in the judgment of the court I remember well the case between the late Lord Leverhulme and the late Lord Northcliffe. Lord Leverhulme consulted some of the most eminent counsel, and they all turned down his case until, finally, it was submitted to the late Lord
Birkenhead, who wrote an opinion in three lines, saying:
The slander was of the grossest kind and the damages would be enormous.
I believe that it cost the defendants something like £750,000 to get all the cases settled.

Mr. MAXTON: The cases are not analogous.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: These were cases of civil slander. This was a criminal case. The question is: Can anyone put a finger on any of the legal steps taken by the Crown in this case and say that an error in practice, in conduct or in law was made? You cannot do anything of the kind. I followed the case in the Scottish newspapers, and I thought that it was being conducted, as far as I could see, with very great skill on both sides. It will never do to have the conduct of our Law Officers, who are men of eminence in Scotland and in England, brought up and criticised because the decision is different from that which some people consider is right. The question is, was there a prima facie case? After the most careful examination the Lord Advocate's Department came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case and that it was their duty to go on with it. The people who are responsible ultimately for the decision are the court, the judges and the jury. It would be a most regrettable precedent if when cases of this kind come up the Law Officers should be subject to criticism by those who have not sat day by day in the case and who do not know the case as well as the solicitor and counsel. Otherwise, it would be impossible to carry a Crown prosecution, because the Crown would always say: "Unless we are absolutely sure of a conviction we cannot prosecute." If they are absolutely sure, the accused would probably plead guilty. When I was a practising counsel and got a clear case I said, "There is no fight in this case," and as a rule there was not. It is only when there is a doubt that you realise that you are likely to have a contest. That was the position in this case. It was a difficult case of extraordinary complication and, speaking with a great deal of feeling, I repudiate the reflection cast upon the Lord Advocate's Department.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I will endeavour to deal with the points that were
raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and particularly with one point he made that was so unsound that the word "unsound" is too mild an epithet to use in regard to it. In case I should be pressed for time let me deal with the unsound matter first. I regret more than I can say that the hon. Member for Gorbals, with the approval, apparently, of some of his colleagues—

Mr. MAXTON: All of them.

The LORD-ADVOCATE: That makes it worse. With the approval of all of his colleagues, the hon. Member has raised a question relating to a matter which at the present time is under the consideration of His Majesty's Judges. The hon. Member shakes his head at that. That simply demonstrates his complete and abyssmal ignorance of the whole matter. In the very short time at my disposal I will tell the Committee what the position is. It is perfectly true that over a year ago, acting on my responsibility—and I assume responsibility, and I ask neither the hon. Member for Gorbals nor the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to share it—I had a number of business men of the City of Glasgow put under arrest. I do not follow the argument that that shows a discrimination in favour of the rich against the poor, but, following on that arrest, the most careful and exhaustive inquiry was made, in which the Crown had the advantage of the advice of the most eminent accountants of the City of Glasgow. Following on that,, I indicted on my responsibility—and I accept responsibility—11 men upon charges of a very serious kind. Of those 11 men, one man had to drop out on a medical certificate which made it quite impossible for that particular man to go to trial. Of the 10 who were left it was necessary to drop out two others in order to keep the trial within manageable dimensions. It was a matter of the very greatest difficulty to bring even eight men to trial, and we were compelled by practical considerations to limit, as we did limit, the number, and we ultimately brought eight men to trial. In the course of the trial one man fell ill. What would the hon. Member for Gorbals have done in those circumstances?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Let the man off.

The LORD ADVOCATE: We did not let the man off. We reserved the right
of the Crown to proceed against him at a later date. The hon. Member would have let that man off, but that was not the method I followed. If we had agreed to the interim liberation of a particular man, it meant a postponement—and that would have been a second postponement of the trial—for at least a week. It had already been interrupted for a period of 10 days by the illness of a juror. I suppose in those circumstances the hon. Member for Gorbals would have let them all off.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You would have saved spending public money.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member is much concerned about spending public money. There are the apostles of economy! Let us consider the situation. The cases of seven men went to the verdict of the jury. The last thing I want to say in this House is a single word reflecting upon any man who obtained a verdict from the jury. I am going to say this when my public administration is attacked, that upon the main charge there was not a single verdict of not guilty—not one. That fact alone is ample, and indeed to anyone who knows anything at all about these matters, overwhelming vindication of the course which I followed as Public Prosecutor in bringing these men to trial. Even were it otherwise, the hon. Member for Gorbals and his colleagues must remember that the aim of a prosecution is not to secure conviction.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish that were so.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Perhaps the hon. Member may reflect on it with hope.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been in a good many criminal courts, and I have never seen the Crown acting in this way. I wish it would.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If there is one thing settled in the tradition and practice of the Department of which I have the honour to be the head, it is that the aim of the prosecution in Scotland is not to secure a conviction but to present fairly and impartially a case for the consideration of the jury and that where the jury acquits a man to accept loyally the acquittal without making any reflections upon it. The hon. Member has said that of the men charged, most were acquitted. That should not be a matter for regret but
or congratulation. I should never have mentioned the matter if I did not think that what the hon. Member has said conveyed a reflection which should never have been made.

Mr. BUCHANAN: They should never have been charged.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I, and my Department are the best judges of that, and as long as I remain at the Deparment I am not going to consult the hon. Member for Gorbals or the hon. Member for Bridgeton.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must also recollect that whilst he will no doubt carry out the responsibilities of his office we shall carry out the responsibilities of ours and criticise him whenever we feel inclined.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am the last person to resent well informed criticism but the kind of criticism to which I have been subjected to-night has been of the most ignorant, stupid and irresponsible kind. As regards the hon. Member for Bridgeton if he will raise the matter on another occasion I shall be glad to deal with him and his point of view. In regard to the question of bail, the hon. Member for Gorbals does not realise that the moment a man is convicted he is no longer a prisoner of the Crown but a prisoner of the court. An unconvicted man is the prisoner of the Crown, and the Crown has a responsibility to see that he is there for trial. But the moment the verdict of the jury falls the man becomes the prisoner of the court, and the Crown has no responsibility whatever. It is true that the court may ask the Lord Advocate his view on the matter of bail, and I understand that the real essence of the charge of the hon. Member is acquiescence. On that point the issue is simply this. These men were penniless and the issue was either nominal bail or no liberation. I was in favour of nominal bail. I would take the same decision tomorrow. There was no departure from practice or precedent. My time is up, but I will welcome a further opportunity of defending my position in this House.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIEMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — DISARMAMENT (PRESIDENT HOOVER'S PROPOSALS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

Mr. LANSBURY: In accordance with the notice that I gave at Question Time, I desire to raise some questions relative to the Disarmament Conference, and specifically in regard to the Government's attitude towards Mr. Hoover's proposals. At the outset I would like to say that we shall probably have another opportunity of more fully discussing the Government's policy. In taking the action we are taking to-night, we are doing so mainly to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity, if he is able to take advantage of it, of briefly stating what is the Government's real attitude in reference to the proposal put forward by the President of the United States. I think the House will agree that this question of Disarmament is one which, ever since the Peace Treaties, we have had continually not only before this House but before the whole world. There has been conference after conference. People's hopes have been raised, and, relatively speaking, precious little has been done. There have been numberless proposals and projects put forward, and we have had rejoicings at the end of some conferences. Others have been admittedly absolute failures. This one has been going on now for some months.
We have lived in a condition of one crisis after another, one proposal after another, and only apparently in sheer desperation the President of the United States put forward a proposition upon which up to the present His Majesty's Government have not given any unequivocal statement. I do not stand here to say that President Hoover's proposal goes as far as my friends would desire that the British Government should go, but it certainly is one of the most magnificent proposals that have yet been put forward. It covers a wider range than any other proposition short,
I think, of the Russian proposition for complete and total disarmament. At present people who have an interest in this subject and who think that it is of great importance to the world that some results should accrue from the Conference that has been proceeding for so many months, think that the British Government especially have a duty to perform in relation to the matter. We think, and the world thinks, that our Government are more interested than, or at least are as interested as, any other Government in this matter. We are more interested from the point of view of the fact that we are, if not the most powerful nation, one of the most powerful nations in the world, and if we were to join with the United States we would be the two most important nations, as regards armaments. Other nations would think a good many times before they refused to follow us.
That is not the only point. We have also to remember that this country is intensely interested in the questions of War Debts and reparations and of trade and commercial relationships. If we are to believe statesmen who make speeches on this subject—I mean the purely orthodox statesmen—all these questions are intimately linked up, one with the other. We are told by American statesmen that it is unfair that Europe should expect the War Debts and reparations question to be settled, if that settlement is to release money to be spent on more armaments. We think that the Conference at Lausanne and the Conference at Geneva are irrevocably mixed up, one with the other, and, because it is of the utmost importance that both should succeed, we want the British Government to come forward and to stand for at least as much disarmament as the United States. It may be argued that the British Government have better proposals. Let us see them now. Let the world see them now. When I say the world, I mean people like the House of Commons. This House has as much right to know what our Government have up their sleeves, as the United States have to lay their proposals on the table. We feel that a great deal of distrust is being sown in the world because of the apparent indifference shown to this one concrete proposal and it seems to us that as the days pass the difficulties will become greater. It is imperative that we should know
whether the Government are prepared, first, to accept the principle of a reduction of one-third, and then work out any details which are necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman may say, as was said yesterday, that the Dominions must be consulted. I quite understand that the Dominions have to be consulted on these matters and that it is more or less necessary to obtain their consent. But this House has to vote most of the money for the armaments of the country. This is not a question for secret diplomacy. This is not a question in regard to which secrecy is important. This is a question in regard to which openness and frankness are more important than anything else. If His Majesty's Government have put propositions to the Dominions, we think those propositions ought to be laid on the Table of the House. We do not think the Governments of the Dominions have any more right than Members of this House to know what is in our own Government's mind, and no one will deny that at present we know very little of what is in the Government's mind. I remember quite well the Foreign Secretary's last speech on this subject. I listened to it from beginning to end, and when he had finished I thought it was the most disappointing statement that I had ever heard on this subject. Since then he has made, so far as I know, no advance.
If the Government have put to the Dominions Mr. Hoover's proposal and some alternative proposal of their own, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to tell us so to-night and to tell us what it is, so that the world may know that it is not true that our Government are boggling about whether it shall be one Dig ship here or a submarine there, whether it shall be a big submarine somewhere and a smaller one somewhere else, or whether it shall be so many bombing machines of a certain size or some of a reduced size. What we want from the Government is as clear and as categorical a statement of their position in this matter as it is possible for us to obtain, but we want most of all that the right hon. Gentleman should deal with Mr. Hoover's proposal and the Government's attitude towards it. That is to say, do we believe that the proposal is to practical one? Do we believe in it sufficiently to back it as hard as ever we can until the other Governments come in with us; and are we prepared to say to the world that we will take our
stand with the American Government and people in leading the world along the path of disarmament?
We hear a great deal of Anglo-American alliances and at meetings of the societies that exist to maintain and develop the best relationship between this country and America, we hear a great deal about the Anglo-Saxon people standing together and so on. We on this side should like to see the Anglo-Saxon people, as represented by the people of this country and of America, coming together and forming a determined lead to bring about disarmament at all costs, and not only to lead the world in pious aspirations or in long speeches on the subject, but to come right down to facts, as it were, and put before the world a united statement as to what we mean by disarmament. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite was present in the Royal Gallery when the Disarmament Conference was held during the period that the Labour Government were in office, and he must, I think, have been struck with the feeling that pervaded that assembly, that we were starting on a new era. I reminded the House that I too sat in the big hall in Paris where the Peace Conference was opened, and I would remind the House again that the speech made by Mr. Wilson on that occasion was that we were then, in 1919, entering on a new era in the history of the world. How many times since then have the same sort of words been uttered, at conference after conference, at that Box and from this Box, in the other place, and in various parts of the country? I read the great speeches by the right hon. Gentleman in the Albert Hall, and by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and at the end of it all we have got nowhere.
When I read Mr. Hoover's proposal, I thought that it was one of the most splendid statements that have ever been made on the subject. It did not go as far as people like me would desire, but in these days of so much of what appears to us to be—I will not say make-believe, but unreality, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to-night to stand at the Box and say, "We not only welcome whole-heartedly what Mr. Hoover has proposed, but we are going to back it, and we will, if possible, go further than
he has done; we will not make any niggling proposals to cut down what he has proposed, but we want to carry it still further and to do what President Wilson said at Paris—carry through for the common people that security which only comes when there is real peace." We have in this House and in the country to disarm our minds of the war spirit, the spirit of domination and power, and when a man like Mr. Hoover takes the line he has, the Prime Minister ought to take the same line and say that because of the horrors that war has piled upon mankind we, the two great powerful nations of the world, will join together and set an example of real disarmament.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I quite understand the motives which have animated the right hon. Gentleman in opening this brief discussion, and I only wish it were possible for me to say what I hope may be possible before many days are passed. At present I cannot answer all his questions, but I think I may be able to say something that may give some satisfaction to him, and, I hope, satisfaction to the House. I am in general agreement with much that he has just said. He spoke of having heard me make speeches on this subject, but I am not conscious of having made more than one or two in the last 10 years. I have not spoken on this subject because I have been dissatisfied with what has been accomplished by the nations at Geneva. They have been playing with the subject. There are 50 or 60 nations involved in this question. It is not only a question between two nations, however great and powerful. However, that is not a very important point.
I would like to remind the House that for about a week prior to the sudden and unexpected issue of these proposals, conversations were in fact taking place between ourselves, the Americans and the French, and those conversations were for the purpose of ascertaining as accurately as we could how much common ground existed between the three nations and the best method of enlarging that common ground. Those conversations had made some progress. To those not familiar with disarmament problems, which are numerous and most complicated, I must point out that the proposals made now are of a completely different nature from those which have been studied by the
nations over a long time, and the whole problem is so difficult that it is impossible in a day or two, or even after days, to give definite replies to the questions which the the right hon. Gentleman has asked. I rejoice to see them, because they are proposals on a kind of scale on which I should like to see disarmament take place though when I say that, I do not mean in detail.
There are one or two difficulties to which I should like to allude. This matter has to be examined with the very gravest care and in order that we could have a preliminary examination I asked that our representatives might be spared to come over from Geneva to give us first-hand news of what was going on and to bring with them certain memoranda that had been received in connection with these proposals which we had not seen in London. We had a discussion of over two hours yesterday afternoon. I can assure the House that one or two gentlemen who have written in the Press that there has been a split in the Cabinet on this subject, will be very glad to hear that that is not the case. I am sure no one will rejoice more than the "Daily Herald." There is not a single word of truth in the articles which appeared, and they will rejoice to know that I have never known any Cabinet—I have been in a great many now—more unanimous than the Cabinet was in discussing these important proposals yesterday afternoon.
The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary returned to-day. The Foreign Secretary flew, and is, I hope, safely in bed in Geneva now. They will report to the members of the Cabinet who are still out there—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Trade—and I hope very much that when they have had time to have some consultation we may be in a position here to give the House some really substantial information. But the House will see that until the Prime Minister has knowledge of our discussions, and until our colleagues have met, it is perfectly impossible for any Minister here to give any definite or authoritative reply. With regard to the point about the Dominions, the various subjects we discussed yesterday will be communicated in the ordinary course to them, and I think it will probably be only a matter of a day or two before we get their reply.
I hope the House will take it from me once more that, as I said at the beginning of these few observations, not only do I rejoice that proposals on this scale are being put forward, but I most sincerely trust that proposals may be carried that will ensure, if not in that form, as great a reduction in quantity as is contained in the so-called Hoover proposals. We have been working for a long time, and I have had a good deal to do with the work myself, on these problems. The House will recognise, and I hope the Opposition will recognise, that this country has responsibilities which no other country has, for we are responsible not only for the safety of our own food supplies in time of war—we have a duty to our own people—but we are responsible for the maintenance of law and order for some hundreds of millions of people in the East and for keeping open the sea communications between ourselves and the Dominions on the other side of the world.
Therefore, although it is perfectly possible for us to join in bringing about as great reductions as are suggested in the proposals which have come from Washington, yet there are various aspects of disarmament that must be guarded against by any Government in power in this country because of the responsibility they have to their own people and to their people overseas. You cannot make a yard stick of disarmament, because there are several countries that may be able to make equivalent contributions but which must settle, inside the limits that are allowed, how best they can distribute their forces between the Air Force, the Navy and the Army. These things are difficult and complicated, and have not yet been studied in direct reference to the novel plan which has been put forward by President Hoover. I have just put these thoughts before the House to show what questions have to be considered, and must be considered. I do not admit what the right hon. Gentleman said, that a delay of a few days will endanger anything being done on this occasion. I do not think so at all. I think that by far the most dangerous thing is to rush in and say that a certain plan is possible before we have had time to examine it. I entirely agree with the essence of the proposals, and I would be anxious, as I am sure the Government is, to see as great an amount of dis-
armament as is comprised in these proposals.
Whether the proposals as they have come to us are the best form, either for us, or for other countries, in which to get that amount of disarmament, requires the closest examination. That is the position. We are going into this (matter with a view to making the whole thing a real success. It is quite impossible, I imagine, although I have not been in consultation with anyone, with proposals of this magnitude, to see the results achieved immediately. I imagine that, if these questions are to be taken up, as I hope and believe they will be, seriously and with a view to giving effect to the essence that is contained in them, it is probable that the Disarmament Conference, or the greater
part of it, which has been engaged on these great problems, will have to adjourn and meet again at as early a date as possible, to bring into effect among these multitudinous nations the amount of disarmament that could be brought about by the adoption of these proposals or of equivalent proposals. I do not think that there is anything at this moment that I could say. I have had no opportunity of having any consultation with the Prime Minister, but I feel quite certain that I have said nothing to-night to which the Head of the Government would take exception.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.